Christo-Paganism is not for everybody, and neither is this forum. Some have said that the Pagan community is a place where doctrine is never found, and perhaps even believed this, but try to go to a Wiccan list and convince the members there to abandon their belief in magic, and see how long you get to stay. Yes, of course we must establish doctrines, if only in a tentative sense, as tools for defining who we are as a religious community. We do this as we say "no evangelization", and make that demand stick, because in order to make it stick, we have to have some sense of what evangelization is. Other religious communities have done so, and the time has long since come when we, as Christo-Pagans, should do the same and do it without apology.
(I should point out, while I have your attention, that the points below are not ones that all Christo-Pagans will agree with. This is specifically a forum for the generally more conservative, Synchretic Traditionalist branch of Christo-Paganism, the one in which the Pagan roots lie in Historical Reconstructionism, not Wicca or some other Neo-Pagan movement. Even at that, not all Synchretic Traditionalists will endorse these positions, but they do strike me as being a good place in which to begin a discussion, and not ones so far afield from the cultural norms as to doom this forum to non-participation. In rejecting postmodernism, we are returning to the past, but it's a past not even fifteen years removed at the time of this writing, one far from being irretrievably lost).
Let's start, then, with a few points that just aren't open to discussion or debate. As in, you may not even ask people why they believe in these points. We all know what a rhetorical question is, and we're not going to leave the door open to people who will ask those and then try to play lawyer by saying "I wasn't arguing, I was just asking a question". These points are givens from which the discussion shall proceed.
Board Doctrines
- Morality is objective, not subjective. The rights of the individual take priority over the whims of the mob.
- Reality is not subjective, even should we blind ourselves to it. Believe as hard as you want that a geyser is spouting cool, refreshing ice water, and the spray will still scald you.
- Careful reason and diligent study are of greater worth than uncontrolled emotional outbursts and flights of fancy.
- The truth in all scholarly matters is a thing to be valued for its own sake. We are not to rewrite history for the sake of personal self-esteem, to advance some political agenda, or in some other way promote some nebulous "greater good".
- In other words, postmodernists aren't welcome here. This forum proceeds from a rationalist, Western "premodern" point of view. Encounter the unreconstructed "ethnics" in the midst of an academic seminar, and you'll see what I mean by that. "Out with the old, in with the new" is not an acceptable slogan on this board; the sense of tradition which defines us as we approach the reality of historical progess is a pre-20th century one, that century in particular being viewed as a time when much of American society went down a cultural blind alley, one from which it needs to return if it is to make any real progress at all.
- There is a supreme being, a God of whom "none are like unto him".
- That supreme being is not, however, the only god. There are other divinities who, while not His equal, are worthy of the honors we pay them in worship.
- Jesus is one of the gods. Whether he is the supreme being, an aspect of the supreme being, or a lesser divinity and a servant of the supreme being, is not to be considered a matter of board doctrine. In setting doctrine, we merely assert the divinity of Jesus and leave it at that.
- We shall know the gods, other than Jesus, as well as we can by studying the traditions that come down to us in the form of the historical cults of these gods. Christo-Paganism, as it shall be discussed here, grows out of some form of Historical Reconstructionism, as well as Christianity, as the original faiths of our fully Pagan predecessors in the worship of our non-Christian gods speak to a collective experience of these gods that spans centuries or millenia.
- "Know thyself" ... and know thou art not God, nor a god. Though the gods may not be perfect, they are our betters and are to be approached in a spirit of reverence, a reverence which we, as mere humans, do not dare ask others to show us. We leave all clerical titles, all of the pretense that comes from asking others to call us by such inflated titles as "lady this" and "lord that" at the door.
- The ancients were men like us. They were not infallible - only the Supreme being would be capable of being that. Though they had a longer acquaintance with the ancient gods than do we, they were occasionally in error when they spoke of the gods, and the deeds and the wishes of the gods, as one must inevitably occasionally be when speaking of something greater than oneself. This understanding does not give us a license to disregard what the ancients said, casually and without a second thought, as the fluffies do. It does, however, mean that we are to regard the study of the old religions are being only the beginning of an unending quest to understand the gods as well as our limited faculties allow, and to live as their worshippers in a manner that would please and honor them, in the sense that a child can bring honor to a parent.
During the centuries or millenia that have followed since the various forms of Paleo-Paganism fell by the wayside, much has been learned about the world. Science has progressed. Centuries of philosophical speculation and historical experience have added to our understanding, allowing us to appreciate the experiences we have and hear about from a somewhat more sophisticated point of view than that of our ancestors. We are not to develop a willful amnesia and forget these things merely because the ancients did not know about them - to do so would be to embrace ignorance in a manner that would be little better than that of the fluff bunnies so many "hard core Reconstructionists" complain about.
- That much having been said, when we do diverge from the ancients on matters regarding their gods, we are not to do so lightly.
- Jesus taught each of us to love God with all his heart, all his soul and all of his mind and to loved his neighbor as himself. These comments speak to fundamental ethical truths that are binding on us all, no matter how great the dignity we have earned, whether we be gods or men. Even a god must "know himself" and know that there is something greater even than himself, by which he may rightly be judged. Our faith in the gods is not a faith in some kind of quasi-Lovecraftian presence we submit to out of fear, but a faith in their fundamental goodness, to the extent to which what we know about them will allow us to believe. We are not oblivious to the the flaws in our gods, or of the presence of gods in the mythoi who, on balance, should not be thought of as being benevolent presences. We would know better than to seek a deep personal communion with Eris, the Hellenic goddess of discord, because of what the ancients have told us of what she stands for, but then we invest little faith in her, practicing rituals of aversion when we deal with her, as we would with the malevolent aspects of the gods in general.
When we speak of those aspects of the gods which we worship, we speak of those we trust to do right. We do not speak as some and say that the gods transcend human morality, as if to say they are entitled to do as they please without remorse. We say that human morality is but a faint shadow of divine morality, and as we come to a greater understanding of the moral law we must live by, we come to a deeper understanding of the benevolent aspects of the gods, themselves, those aspects to which we offer worship, not rites of aversion or appeasement. In a spirit of faith, we say that these aspects of the Divine guide us, often in ways we will not understand or even be aware of, because it is fitting that the wise should guide the foolish, and to do any less would be beneath their dignity.
- There are certain basic values which, at the very least, we must affirm through our actions; these values help set the line that divides that which is a matter of moral dissent from that which is morally outrageous. This is a modification of the Universal Base Code of Morality, as described on the Almond Jar, adapted to a multicultural forum in a printed medium. Nothing which was impermissable under the old code is permissible here, as one would expect given the nature and purpose of that code.
- Enlightened Benevolence. The strong desire to see all allowed the opportunity to live their lives happily, and fully, enjoying the good things in life - including oneself.
When one gives advice to another, one must always view that person as an end in himself, and have his best interests and his wishes at heart, when speaking to him.
- Limited Egalitarianism. Equality of rights, not outcomes. The line "do you know who you're talking to" will best be answered with "yes, somebody who's about to get banned from this board". On a broader philosophical level, we are to acknowledge that the capricious granting of privilege, whether it be based on birth or acquired personal political clout, is unacceptable. This does not mean that we are intolerant of the institution of the elder as seen in some societies still in their formative stages. Without such an institution, many of these societies would descend into a bloody anarchy. However, it does mean that we can respect that institution in its own cultural setting only to the extent to which the elder has earned the respect shown to him or her, through the quality of his or her leadership. We may be tolerant of cultures in which those honors are given less rationally, knowing the upheaval that a sudden break with the historical past can bring, but we do not respect them, any more than we respect a troubled child. We honor their institutions, when in their midst, in much the same spirit as we humor that troubled child - out of compassion and the desire to help them get through this bad moment as well as they can, not out of some mistaken belief in the legitimacy of what we are witnessing. Those from such cultures are not ready to step onto the stage of history, yet, and do not belong in this or any other multicultural forum. If they come here and expect us to respect their hierarchy, they will be shown the way out with a minimum of discussion.
Let us add that even where we will grant that the institution of elderhood seems to serve a legitimate purpose in the development of a healthy culture, all such credentials are to be left at the door, to a large extent. If the question is, "what do the Ibo do or believe", we will listen with great attentiveness to what one of the elders has to say, because of her expertise, not because we are being deferential to her. Those seeking deference should be elsewhere, as the desire to be shown this is not appropriate in forums of this nature.
- Civility. By this, I do not mean an unwillingness to ever grow hostile, no matter what, or to refuse to go along with what others want - that is docility, not civility. Rather, this refers to a reluctance to initiate hostilities.
On my own site, I speak of Mediterranean style catharses. That site, however, speaks of the rules of a group that meets in real life, offline. Such catharses do not work well online, and so won't be acceptable here. Nor, really, would they have been traditionally acceptable - what we do here is a matter of publishing in a printed medium, and the standards for such communication have always been higher. Don't write it unless you really do mean it - the written word, unlike the verbal outburst, lingers where all can see it. This, however, should not be construed as an adoption of the thoroughly illogical "Emily Post" standards advocated by some, eg. not being able to criticize somebody for lying about what one has written, on the basis that one ought not be calling somebody a liar, no matter what, even if he is demonstrably a liar. Civility is not the same thing as ettiquette - ettiquette doesn't need to make sense. Civility does.
Let's note that the stricter standards accorded to conduct in an acedemic forum, or in the use of the written word, has one unintended but welcome result - it allows us to speak with those from other cultural backgrounds with greater ease. Those from Southern European or Mediterranean backgrounds are reminded that what, to us, is merely catharsis, to the Norse will seem an unprovoked emotional assault, and a personal challenge, one which will bring humiliation and dishonor to them if they do not respond with real hostility. To do otherwise would be viewed as cowardice in cultures that never adopted any sort of street theatre as part of their traditions. Let us do nothing that will cause our Northern European visitors needless discomfort, especially when there is no reason to be found in either tradition or practical philosophy for doing so.
- Tolerance and True Freedom. After a few decades of widespread Social Engineering, this has become a difficult concept to make clear, sometimes. What if that person has been so heavily conditioned, from birth, to believe that something is her duty, or something desirable, that she has never had the chance to sit down, clear her head, and decide independently, for herself, what it is that she believes, or wants?
So, what is freedom? What is tolerance?
A short answer, is that true freedom comes, when the opportunities exist to live out choices that are an expression of one's true inner nature, and desires, NOT when those choices are a reflection of one's conditioning, which one is directly or indirectly blocked from examining.
- Honor. Transparency in our dealings, especially here. We are merely here to exchange ideas. There can be little, if any, excuse for acting on a hidden agenda here.
In our own conduct in a print forum, in which there should not be a social element, honor becomes an easier thing to define than in real life, with all of its untidy complexities. We do not do that which would help us prevail in the court of public opinion in spite of the weakness of our points. We do not lie, not about the facts and especially not about what somebody else has said - that's libel. We do not knowingly construct fallacies in the hope that others won't pick up on them. We do not engage in the use of ad hominems, not do we try to confuse others by labeling things as ad hominems which are not. (To cite one's credentials in response to an unsubstantiated opinion or claims made to what the facts of a situation are, is not an ad hominem. Responding to a substantive argument with a personal attack, in the apparent hope of keeping those present from reading that argument with open minds, is an ad hominem, and is inexcusable behavior).
- Personal and Family Loyalty - this is not an excuse for backing up your friends when they do something unethical, or refusing to listen in a fair minded way when somebody makes a case that your family and friends have done them an injustice, one that you are helping them commit. That which is impermissable when done directly does not become permissible merely because it is being done by proxy. It does, however, mean that one gives one's own the benefit of the doubt, and is there for them in their time of need.
- Respect for Tradition. Among other things, this value means that as we set our priorities, weighing off one good against another, we start with the assumption that we ought to do so in the manner tradition would suggest, and diverge from that tradition only when solid reasons can be presented for doing so. Even then, we do so reluctantly, knowing all too well the danger of creating a social setting in which all is easily negotiable.
Let us also recognize that we come from a variety of cultural backgrounds. "Hellenes shouldn't be doing this because the Havermal says otherwise" or "Odysseus wouldn't have eaten lutefisk" are just inappropriate. We approach another's cultures and traditions starting from his own traditional perspective, as if we were of his people, diverging from that tradition only in the way we would if it were our own - only with the greatest of reluctance and with solidly argued reasons backing up our innovations. In the presence of a culture with which one is unfamiliar, one is to be as a child, standing silently as long as one can bear, when in doubt, in the attempt to be as sure as possible that one understands what one is seeing before speaking, because what one initially perceives as understanding is often little more than a sign of how little one understands. The mere knowledge of one's lack of knowledge is often a thing not freely obtained, but the product of the opening of one's mind to possibilities that one didn't imagine existed, that comes from prolonged observation and relatively open-minded examination.