This blog post is not the place to explore this issue very far, but from a Pagan perspective Jesus has to be demoted to a wise teacher, Western Christian concepts such as original sin and the fallenness of the world must be abandoned, and the virtually universal Christian claims to exclusivity of worship of either Yahweh or Jesus must be cast aside.
Why can’t Paganism include both monotheistic and pluro-theistic practices? In Hinduism, there are Hindus who venerate several Deities; other Hindus exclusively venerate One Deity, while recognizing the sacredness of other Deities (as perhaps servants of the One Deity). If a ChristoPagan exclusively venerates Christ, while recognizing the valid sacrality of the Deities of other Pagans, then why would that be unworkable? The historical problem in Western Abrahamicisms is the tendency to suppress non-Abrahamic worship, not exclusive veneration of an Abrahamic Deity per se.
I agree that this topic is too big for a blog-post, so I just wanted to through out the above points.

Dear Gus:
Thanks for the thoughtful post. I particularly appreciated your insight that in the absence of coercion, differentiation is what occurs. I think that is why I often observe that the early histories of religious movements have greater variety in terms of practice and interpretation than their later histories. I believe it was Elaine Pagels who noted this for the history of Christianity; that early Christianity had a huge spectrum of options and that gradually, over time, many of these options were eliminated, often through the use of coercion. I have observed the same in the early, Indian, history of Buddhism. Early Buddhism had no less than 18 major non-Mahayana traditions only one of which, the Theravada, survives today; and then their emerged the additional Mahayana interpretations. All of this generated a highly complex tapestry for Indian Buddhism. This was significantly reduced in its complexity through Shaivite aggression, followed by Islamic hostilities. Although Buddhism today is highly variable, my perception is that it was even more varied in its early centuries.
I would like to offer one comment regarding nondualism. My view is that nondualism has gotten a free ride in the last twenty years or so and that the difficulties of nondualism are often simply ignored. There are serious gaps in nondual presentations, but today the assumption is that nondualism is the pinnacle, the ultimate. The book seems to, as your review presents its view, to also have that assumption. But there is no particular reason to think of the nondual as innately superior to dualism, or a view grounded in what I call the “transcendental many”. Nonduality is just a view, a philosophical position, yet another interpretation of a mystical experience, or realm, that truly lies beyond any explanation, including that of the nondual.
Thanks,
Jim

Two quick comments. First, the idea of exclusive devotion to a single deity is certainly in harmony with Pagan practice, so long as the existence and legitimacy of others is accepted. I hadn’t thought of the relation to Christ that you describe when I wrote me review, but it would certainly be a “ChristoPaganism” to me, and in keeping with my understanding of Paganism’s nature.
Jim, I agree and will explore this issue more later. But I am not sure the Higgenbothams would endorse Wilber’s elevation of the NonDual. Rather, that issue is a part of my suspicion that the Wilber-Beck model of Spiral Dynamics is a very weak foundation for ANY Pagan philosophy.

I think the term “exclusive devotion” needs to be clarified. There are two related but different terms used in comparative religion. The more familiar term, “monotheism” means not just the worship of one god, but the belief that only one god does, in fact, exist. Thus Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians are monotheists. Each religion believes that only one god exists (though each religion has different names for Him), and of course, worship only that one god. All other gods are considered to be false and nonexistent.
“Henotheism”, a less familiar term, means “worship of only one god without denying the existence of others“. Thus, Antonius might worship or show devotion only to Apollo, while Marius worships only Dionysus; each may very well admit the existence of the entire pantheon. Thus, what the posts here are referring to is properly called “henotheism”. Some scholars believe that Judaism in its earliest forms, worshiping YHWH exclusively without denying the existence, say, of Marduk or Asherah. Certainly it developed into monotheism over the course of history.
Religions such as Hinduism are sometimes referred to as “monolatrous”, that is, “worshiping a single divine principle”. This divine principle is conceptualized as being manifest to or perceived by humans as many different “gods” or divinities. Each is, however, only an aspect of the Ultimate. There are real divisions among pagans on this. Some are “hard polytheists” (I have a friend who more or less subscribes to this) who believe the gods are discrete, separate beings just as much as humans are. Others with a more Hindu-like view are “soft polytheists”, who think that the various gods are not necessarily literal separate beings, but facets of the Divine.
As a Christian myself, I don’t particularly have an iron in this fire. I just think that getting the terminology right helps clarify where one is coming from.

There’s a lot of deep theological and philosophical concepts in play here, but I would simply offer that my own experieces with “Christo-Pagans” has generally not left me with a positive impression of the concept. So far, I have found that Christo Pagans don’t come to pagan circles out of a real calling or understanding of what we’re about. Rather, they are Christians at heart who didn’t like some of the severe dogma of their old pastors or parents and want something warm and fuzzy and non-judgmental and mystic and New-Agey. Many, especially female practicioners, want something that speaks of and to the divne feminine.
I can certainly appreciate them wanting those things, but that doesn’t make them pagan. I don’t think any of them really appreciate how fundamentally different our world view are. How can a person really live and grow and contribute to a spirituality that’s about ultimate freedom and ultimate responsibility when their conditioning still tells them they require salvation because they were born into a corrupt “fallen” state?
Moreover these folks almost always bring other baggage from their background to the circle – homophobia and deep conflicts about sexuality in general, a congregational mindset that relies on clergy as intermediaries. Coven leaders who come from this background frequently try to exert the same sort of ecclesiastical authority as a pastor or priest would. They also don’t really grasp the value and nature of the dark aspect of god and goddess because they’re still hung up on the ultimate good and evil thing. My first priestess actually told me I was invoking a “Satanic” entity by working with Cerridwen during Samhain! Christo-Pagans are not the only ones I encouter this with. Judeo-Pagans carry pretty much all the same baggage. At the far end of the spectrum, be aware that some Christo-Pagans are really just ex-witch missionary types who hope to eventually bring us around to conversion. The case of Kendra Vaughn out east pretty well summarizes to me why this concept doesn’t work.
This whole question is a quandry for us because we’re not dogmatic and we acknowledge that any one person’s tradition can be as valid as another. On the other hand, I still believe paganism is something deeper and more distinct than a bit of New Age garnish that can be thrown on over other religions and still remain authentic. Maybe Christo-Paganism can truly be made to work, but I’m afraid the experiments will need to be conducted outside of my circle!

Interesting conversation. I admit as someone who fits in the “Judeo-Pagan” category, although don’t use it often. I’d appreciate if people would judge each person on their own merits, though, especially speaking of us in the same breath as these specific ChristoPagans.
Saying that, as earth-based Jew, I can also empathize with the concerns about appropriation by the hands of Christians, considering the history of Christianity beginning as a Roman appropriation of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews in many ways.
Basically, the openness of Paganism leaves us open for any sort of eclectic blending, so you should expect all kinds of people getting involved.
On another note, I’ve also read a few Ken Wilber books and find his perspective interesting, but share Gus’ skepticism, especially how he seems to want to call all traditions that don’t fit into his model “flatlanders”, especially Pagans.
I personally address YHVH or Yah as one of many of the Whole, believing the use of this God-form as a specific political movement that shifted into a whole other place throughout history. Asherah’s my patron Goddess so to speak, with Yah as her consort. (;

Gus writes: ”I am less impressed with their efforts at finding a means to theoretically blend Christianity and Paganism.”
For what it may be worth: in my own practice, ChristoPaganism does not involve blending the Pagan apple and the Christian orange into a sort of marmalsauce that’s a mishmash of both. Rather, it involves what the Higginbothams refer to as:
. . .the ability to hold multiple perspectives at once in an honouring way that does not need to choose one over the other, or to resolve seeming contradictions between them. (p. xvi)
Interestingly, double (or multiple) religious belonging is not at all uncommon in the Orient. It is less so in the West. I suspect that this difference may be the result, in part, of the different model of truth that prevail in the two cultures.
In the West, our model of truth is Aristotelian, and is based on contradiction and exclusion. A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time, in the same way. Truth is either-or; either this or not this. It cannot be both. For something to be true, it has to be, in its domain, the only, the absolute truth. Indeed, its truth value is demonstrated by showing how it excludes all other alternatives.
This model for defining truth is open to numerous criticisms, and particularly when dealing with the Ultimate. An alternative model is one that is relational rather than exclusionary. The Duala people of Cameroon say that, to make oneself understood, two sounds are needed. The Taoist principle of yin-yang, for example, is a model of reality based, not on contradiction, but on a dynamic coincidence of opposites. Truth here is perceived not as either-or, but, rather, as both-and; and apparent contradictions are seen not as such, but, rather, as mutually enriching contrasts.
An interesting paper on this subject, “Double Religious Belonging and Liminality; An Antropho-Theological Reflection,” can be found at http://www.sedos.org/english/amaladoss_8.htm

Great piece, Gus! I read this in MS form and recommended to the publisher (at its request) that it was well worth publishing. It contains many intriguing ideas about something I’ve had difficulty understanding. My experiences with people who identify themselves as Christo-Pagan are similar to those of kenneth.
That said, my experiences with Christians and most other Abrahamics in the context of interfaith activities has been positive and unexpectedly most pleasant.

Hi Gus,
I’ve just received this book in the post. I’m really looking forward to reading it as I’ve greatly enjoyed their previous works.
Funnily I have just submitted my ms. (of my new book) which is about Christo-Druidry. It’s called The Path of The Blue Raven (published this year by O Books) and tells the tale of my own journey from Christian Priesthood to OBOD Druidry. The third section includes about 20 stories from folk who are also either Christo-Druids or Pagan Druids who still value parts of their pre-druidic spiritual traditions. It has been a joy to write, but (more than that) a deeply life transforming experience for me.
I guess I see Jesus as a friend to all – whether Christian, Hindu, Pagan or whatever. In a similar way I see The Buddha, Confucius and all other inspirers of humankind to be ‘friends to all.’ One does not need to ‘convert’ to enjoy any of their blessings.
I actually feel that the Church has not helped matters by idolising Jesus’s words (if indeed we can be certain they ARE all his) and making him into the founder of something he did not originally intend. I feel he was primarily a corrector of legalistic religiosity that caused divisions between deity and humanity, rather than founder of a new religion! And, ironically, it seems to be Christianity that is in most need of his correction today!
Blessings to you and all you blog readers.
Mark Townsend
http://www.magicofsoul.com

I’m sorry but i disagree. Christianity is not inclusive, it is exclusive so, imo, to blend the two is, for a better word, ridiculous.
I’m Wiccan and the thought of a Christo-Pagan doesn’t make sense to me as the two religions are at odds with each other. I suppose if one is a Pagan, ground works are pretty much as you want them to be but for Wicca, it is defined.
I simply don’t approve of blending what you want and calling it religion.
To me, this is one of the down sides of Paganism as you call it whatever you want.
I see this as one of the issues that Wicca/Paganism faces in that as some people do whatever they want and call it religion. Sorry, I really disagree with this philosophy.

Ohhhhh labels. Boy are they sometimes a curse! We do need them for sure, but not to lock ourselves inside. Ok, yes we occasionally have to clarify what perspective we’re coming from, but the use of labels beyond that can be so narrowing and excluding. I honestly don’t know why we can’t simply be open to ANY experience that helps us spiritually – ‘Pagan’, ‘Christian’ or whatever.
And (just to make this clear) I served as a C of E priest for ten years, but did not believe in or teach original sin, the literal interpretation of the bible, the exclusive salvation of followers of Christ, hell or that God is male. Rather I tried to evoke feelings of wonder and enchantment at nature and the cosmos, the divinity of all people (in fact all things), the sacredness of sexuality, the non-existence of an ‘evil’ anti-god, the beauty of all spiritual paths and so on. Yet I was still ‘Christian’.
The world of faith is impossible to put in any box. The experience of diety is beyond any tradition.
Sorry if that sounded at all defensive but that’s how I see it.
Mark Townsend

Gwyddion, I feel the same as you. It’s like trying to blend Hasidic Judaism with Fundamentalist Christianity. They are opposites. Sometimes you have to “pick a team and play for it”.
Nevertheless, if someone wants to say they are a Christo-Pagan they certainly don’t need MY permission. It’s their life and their journey, and I feel no threat from them. Have at it.

I think you misunderstand the relationship between the psychological and the social in the spiral dynamics model. Of course the psychological and the social are co-evolutionary. That is, indeed, part of the model. But also, as someone familiar with systems, I know you understand that different elements create different systems. Thus, a social system dominated by level 3 psychologies is going to be different from one dominated by level 5s, as each society will have institutions that reflect the values of the dominant psychologies. The dominance of a psychology (remembering that people themselves are never pure — the model, as all models/theories, as you noted, is a necessary simplification) does not mean that subcultures of others won’t also exist.
To relate it to the issue of theology, what we then see is an emergence of how deity/the sacred is perceived. If we start with the tribalist (purple, if you keep up with the colors) level, you start with nature spirits/animism, then go to polytheism, then to monotheism, then to deism, then to atheism with the pure greens/egalitarians. This is a matter of perception of the sacred. The reality of the sacred is likely to be a combination of them all (how can god/the god(esse)s be both present and absent? — how can they not be?). I strongly recommend Frederick Turner’s “Natural Religion” for more along these lines. No overt spiral dynamics with him, but the holistic synthesis is certainly there (which is very 2nd Tier of him).
Current Catholic theology focuses not so much on the world as fallen, but as having become more complex through the actions of Adam and Eve (whose original sin was a bit of a setup job, since how can you know that eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil is wrong if you cannot know what right and wrong even are until you eat of the fruit? — this is one of many questions I raise in my play “The Cain Apocalypse”). Indeed, that at least is my own theology, seeing the world as emergent and becoming more complex. Too what extent is the world evolving toward deity/deities? To what extent is deity both many and one?

As I said I’ll do a special post on all this before too long.
But two brief points: first, your evolutionary model of awareness of the spiritual is 100% ethno-centric – For example, it says nothing about Asian traditions. The Tao is not deist. Nor is it monotheistic. Nor is it polytheistic. It’s rather close to shamanism in many respects, and in my view is the closest thing to a development of shamanic awareness into an urban civilization that we have. It has been a major part of Chinese culture for maybe 5000 years.
Second, this Spiral Dynamic model indicates enormous lack of knowledge about hunting and gathering peoples. Read Hugh Brody’s ‘The Other Side of Eden’ sometime and see just how ‘primitive’ the psychologies of these people are, how much they resemble ‘children.’
No, that part of Beck/Wilber Sprial Dynamics is BS in the most literal way. But it feels good to those who imagine themselves as ‘yellow’ or ‘turquoise’ or some ‘higher’ color. (I ill never forget that after I wrote a very critical review of Wilber’s Sex, Ecology, Spirituality” Ken ‘rebutted’ me by writing I represented a primitive level of development compared to his. I walked into Berkeley’s Shambhala Bookstore grunting like a pig when I heard hos book so accusing me had come in. They knew what I wanted, and I bought it.
(Ken no longer holds such views about me so far as I know. As I said in my post, our encounters since then have been more of friendly disagreement and mutual respect.)
This is not a rebuttal, just a foretaste of what I will be arguing in more depth.
(I hate this captcha as much as many of you – now I have to click it again…)

Which Taoist tradition are you talking about? I have a friend form China whose family is Taoist, and I learned a lot about it that one doesn’t get from the Westernize version of it (the one I myself was aware of and a fan of for a long time — and I remain a fan). “Folk” Taoism is very animist in nature. What we have handed down to us, what we are most aware of in the West, is the Taoism of Sun Tzu and the other poets. The written tradition (literacy is Red) is incredibly Blue in nature – -much like Plato’s philosophy is Blue. The Way is a non-theistic (not a-theistic) version of Blue — and it’s probably one of the healthiest versions — but it is Blue all the same. The Way is One — that is its monoetheism. It may not be monotheistic in the particular way in which you’re thinking, but it is in the way I think of it.
I think you also misunderstand the relationship between individual development of people in more complex societies and the psychologies at the tribal level. In more complex societies, where people have to move through various levels quite quickly, the levels get compressed into younger and younger people. Tribal people are indeed anything but childlike, but children in more complex societies often must move through that psychological level as children to reach the more complex levels necessary to thrive in the more complex society they live in.
I also noticed that people who work with spiral dynamics sometimes don’t get people they are not that familiar with wrong. Beck and Cowan claimed NIetzsche, who is to me clearly Yellow, was Red. And don’t get me started with the way Wilbur messes up the model. I would peg you at least Yellow, and maybe even Turquoise.
Just a little more for you to chew on.

My last post on this for the moment. I include the folk systems.
I am as much an animist as any of them, have worked with spirits, including nature spirits, for years. If I am somehow “more developed” it is because I can practice within a wider range of traditions – but at the cost of not being as developed within a tradition as I might be were I more focused on it alone.
To say that those in modern society who are in the vast majority are somehow more advanced when they are monotheists, and do NOT believe in such spirits, or believe them to be demonic, is absurd. Really absurd.

It’s not at all absurd. In fact, it’s consistent. They may be wrong — but that’s a different issue. And such people are only at about the middle of the spiral of the 1st Tier. You’re missing the fact that when you enter into the 2nd Tier that you are able to see the 1st in its entirety — meaning, you become sensitive to the fact that all levels are in fact right (and wrong). The integrationist works to integrate the levels into a healthy whole. The pure 1st Tiers all tend to be exclusive of each other and, thus, unhealthy. THe goal for 2nd Tier people should be to create healthy systems. I know that is what you try to do with the social spontaneous order, particularly in regards to democratic government. But why stop there?
More complex does not mean more advanced. The two are different things. That is applying teleology to evolution, which is wrong. A more complex entity can be a good adaptation to a particular environment, and a bad adaptation to another one. I suspect antelope would do poorly trying to survive in the thermal pools of Yellowstone, where certain strains of archaebacteria do wonderfully. In the same way that different organisms are better adapted to come environments than to others, human psychological complexity is only well-adapted to the environments in which they evolved. Put them in a different one, and they will be maladapted for a while, until they either become more or less complex, as the situation demands. That is the benefit of a plastic brain — it is rapidly adaptable. Much faster than DNA, certainly.

I could never hope to match the intellectual prowess on display here. I think I’ll just go beat a drum and dance in a circle.

Parkie, make room for me!

I came across another interesting blog post today that I wanted to share with Gwyddion9 in particular and any others who believe ChristoPaganism is a “blending” of the two religions as they are, and that this can’t possibly happen because they are at odds with one another:
http://twowaydetour.com/blog/?p=41
This blogger says it so well, I’m just going to quote two lines, but definitely read the whole brief post yourself. “Christo-Paganism is not about keeping Christianity fully intact, or keeping any one particular form of Paganism fully intact. Christo-Paganism is a blend of paths that creates a new, independent identification for a belief system, and this is simply one of many terms or labels for it.”
As for your comment that you “don’t approve of blending what you want and calling it religion,” well then how exactly do you think religions are created? How do you think modern (neo) Paganism was created? Are you only a fan of revealed religions? Anything else is going to be created on some level by people, and they are going to use the fodder they have. Just look at the roots of Sikhism in the 15th c. – Nanak was trying to overcome the divisions between Muslims and Hindus by saying that we’re all worshipping the same divinity – he even wore clothing that plainly blended the two to make that point. He basically made up a new religion – which is now the 5th largest organized religion in the world – so you don’t “approve” of that? I guess what I’m trying to say is that it’s not your place to “approve” of someone else’s spiritual path, and you can’t take away their right to call something a religion just because it’s not the same as yours.
Anyway, thanks for reviewing this book Gus – I wish some of the posters would read it and form their own opinions after having done so! : )

Wow Elysia,
Just checked out the link and you’re quite right, the blogger has some really important things to say. Christo-paganism is not Christian Paganism but a way of being Pagan with Christ – beautiful. You know that makes so much sense. I’ve long advocated the fact that Christ is not just for Christians or the Church. The Church has no monopoly on The Christ (be he symbolic, mythic or literal). Indeed I feel that the original historical Jesus (much latterly named the Christ) did, said and beleived things that were far more alligned to a Pagan spirituality than to a modern Christian one: ‘The Kingdom of God (better named the reign of God/Deity) is within you’ for example. Man made religions say ‘God is in that priest, this book, that building’ etc. And that ‘you need to go through this or that route to get to Him.’ But Jesus seemed to say, ‘God (deity) is inside each one of you’ – a very Pagan concept.
All very exciting.
Mark T

Gus, I share your reservations about the Spiral Dynamics/Wilber model. It’s based entirely around a form of special pleading all too common in spiritual circles– “My way is transrational, and as such cannot be justified through mere rational thought, but rather can only be apprehended by those who have reached the appropriate stage,” which is a sentiment that has no practical difference from “I’m right and you’re right if you agree with me in which case I don’t have to justify anything.” Add to this, many of the “2nd tier” folk seem to be, if you’ll forgive my language, real assholes. Wilber in particular has a history of childish behavior (telling critics to suck his dick, for example), which he justifies by claiming it originated in his 2nd tier integral self and so is correct and appropriate.

Mark Townsend explains exactly when I, as a practicing pagan, also consider myself a practicing Episcopalian (the american version of the C of E). To be a christian does not automatically necessitate such beliefs as original sin, a male God, or the exclusive salvation of christ-followers. To claim so indicates a misunderstanding of the faith.
To lock either christianity or paganism in a box is to diminish it, and to deny syncretic integration is to deny the whole history of religion.
Gus, thank you for you thoughtful and evenhanded review. This is a book I will have to look into.

Thanks for the post Elysia,
You make several valid points. I think it’s perfectly valid to say ChristoPaganism doesn’t make sense to you individually, but to say no one else can experiment with it seems a bit, almost dogmatic.
As an earth-based Jew, I would say I’m philosophically very much in the modern Pagan perspective on many issues, yet still value Jewish activities, songs, seasonal celebrations and concepts, yet don’t consider myself monotheistic in any way.
So I encourage others who wish to blend in a similar way. I admit, I can’t relate to your path necessarily, because I don’t have that background. But I do encourage people to make sense of what they’re doing, as much for themselves more than explaining it to others. I certainly think there are many contradictions between mainstream Christianity and modern Paganism that need to be dealt with, but that’s not my responsibility, is it? (:

Thora writes
“To be a christian does not automatically necessitate such beliefs as original sin, a male God, or the exclusive salvation of christ-followers. To claim so indicates a misunderstanding of the faith.”
I mean this question quite sincerely – what do you take to be the irreducible core of Christianity? That without which one cannot be a Christian and the minimium one must hold or practice in order to be one?

Like Thora, I’m Episcopalian (but the UK version / i.e C of E). I’m also a ‘priest’ of that tradition. I honestly do not even like the term ‘Christian’ any more, as is has so much baggage.
But if I were to answer Gus’s question above I would say ‘to love God (Goddess) and to love your neighbour as yourself’ (Jesus’s words – made slightly more inclusive).
On top of this all the things we do in church ritual / sacraments, which always come across as exclusive and limiting, I see as fully inclusive and symbolising what is already true for ALL people. i.e. baptism marks the fatc that the person is already a child of god/dess; eucharist points to the fact that divine life already lives within us; marriage symbolises the fact that these two are already a sacred couple; ordination points to the ‘calling’ or ‘vocation to serve’ that is already burning in a person’s soul.
So in a sense Jesus, to me, points to what is already true to all people – whether they choose to adopt the term Christian or not. Yet, in my experience, is is ironically the ‘Christians’ who are most likely to not understand this and make him into just another projection of what we can’t see in oursleves – hence how he ended up placed so far out reach – up there in the heavens. His whole purpose was to symbolically bring heaven back down to earth where it already is.
Hope all this waffle made some sense.
Mark (the rather confused) ex-vicar / pagan and friend of the penniless radical from Nazareth.

Bill,
It is unfortunate that Wilbur has such an influence over the spiral dynamics model, precisely because of the so many negative things I have heard about Wilbur. But it seems to me to be irrational to reject an idea just because someone who believes in it is a jerk. Such an outburst as you mentioned is a prime example, and a prime example of how Wilbur obviously does not understand the model — as such an outburst is indicative of Red level — low level 1st tier, not 2nd tier. In any case, the very notion that such a model implies an “I’m right, your wrong” shows a misunderstanding of the model, as at l,east in the original development of it, it had nothing to do with one group being right or wrong. In fact, there is no sort of judgement in regards to the different levels. They are merely appropriate responses to certain life conditions. Thus, they are all right. To say one is right and another wrong is like telling dolphins they are wrong for breathing air when they are aquatic — that they should be absorbing oxygen through gills.

Oh no! I almost missed the discussion of the Higgenbotham’s book! Now there are so many comments I have way too much to say. Therefore, I should limit myself to but one thing. Hmmm, what shall it be?
*ponders*
*ponders more*
*begins typing*
>>Gus: I mean this question quite sincerely – what do you take to be the irreducible core of Christianity? That without which one cannot be a Christian and the minimium one must hold or practice in order to be one?>Thora: To be a christian does not automatically necessitate such beliefs as original sin, a male God, or the exclusive salvation of christ-followers. To claim so indicates a misunderstanding of the faith.
To lock either christianity or paganism in a box is to diminish it, and to deny syncretic integration is to deny the whole history of religion.

Regarding what is a Christian and Your Name’s reply. If I understand, for ‘Your Name’ Christianity is a particular way of honoring and loving one another and the sacred in all things. (Maybe or maybe not including sacred immanence as well as sacred transcendence).
I think that (including sacred immanence) is the core of truth in every way of life if understood deeply enoigh, but it is hardly the definition of Christianity that has characterized its advocates historically or currently, outside of a small minority, at least so far as anyone can tell.
I sure wish it were.

Hi Gus,
‘Your Name’ here!
One thing I’m lousy at is working out how to use these blogs correctly. Your Name keeps coming up even though I’ve tried to put my name there, and my name is Mark Townsend.
Anyway you’ve hit the nail on the head with regard to what I believe the essential truth behind and under the Christian tradition is – ‘a particular way of honoring and loving one another and the sacred in all things,’ and that definitely includes ‘sacred immanence as well as sacred transcendence.’
I also agree that this is the core of truth in every spiritual way of life and that it is certainly not ‘the definition of Christianity that has characterized its advocates historically or currently.’
The whole problem (in my very limited opinion) is that Christianity began with a gust of fresh air / a wave of new life / vision which had the impact of ‘cutting out the religious middle man’ and bringing folk back to the older (and more pagan) notion that deity can be experienced by all, personally, and without the need of temples, priesthoods or any form of mediator etc.
This wonderfully rebellious prophet simply wanted to re-awaken the divine within all those he came across. He therefore transformed the lives of the powerless and those who’d been spat out by the institution, and consequently pi**ed off those who ran the institution (even though the gift of a renewed vision was for them too). The consequence for him was of course death!
Jesus did not intend to create ‘Christianity.’ He simply wanted to repair his own tradition from within. But his message still speaks to folk way outside of his original tradition and situation, for it encourages us all to see the divine in ourselves and in one another and (I believe) in all things. Thus Jesus’ real message is truly universal and is also (ironically) nothing to do with ‘converting’ to this or that denomination or religion, but simply knowing that there is no need to ever feel separate from the divine, and that all are essentially good.
I feel so passionate about this that I am beginning a new book called Jesus through Pagan Eyes. I honestly feel that many modern day Druids and Wiccans etc. (if given the opportunity) could come up with a much bigger, brighter, more inclusive and positive image / message of Jesus than we get from 21st C Christianity. I believe large parts of the church are in as much need of his original message as the politico-religious institution he faced 2000 years ago. It is modern pagans who can help us retrieve that message (and I’m not talking about some of the ‘Christo-Pagans’ who still view JC as the truest way etc).
My book will end with a selection of personal stories from some of the leading names in modern day Wiccan / Druidry etc. on their own relationship to this Jewish Magician of Nazareth (or what / whoever he was). Contributors include John Michael Greer and Emma Restall Orr etc. I don’t suppose you’d accept an invitation to submit a piece Gus? I loved what you said about Jesus in the final part of your excellent book ‘Pagans and Christians’. Darn cheeky of me I know but… if you don’t ask!
With big blessings!
Mark Townsend

Jesus said, “If they are not against us, they are with us.” The Christian doctrine “pure” pagans hate so much was not laid down by the man Jesus. Likewise, any honest student of Christianity can see that Christianity based on pagan concepts and mythology, particularly Roman Catholicism. We are in a time when Christians are forsaking the doctrines laid down by the churches and understanding the religion of Christianity, a religion created by pagans (gentiles) to subsume pagan religiosities. Rather than continue a battle that no longer needs to be continued, let us welcome the evolution of syncretistic traditions that might actually bring some understanding and peace among the religious of the west.

I call myself a Christo Pagan. A study of Christianity and its true origins reveals that Chrisitanity is in fact more pagan than Abrahamic. The concept of the trinity, the dying saviour, and in Catholicism the Eucharistic Feast are all drawn from pagan sources, not Jewish sources. The fact is , that Roman Catholicism, essentially created by Constantine, was actually a blend of early Christian and Roman Pagan beliefs. Some have argued that in fact, Roman Catholicism is probably the oldest paganism in existence today, the paganisms of the first three hundred years CE having been absorbed by the Catholic Church and manifested in Mary as the goddess, the saints as the pantheon of gods reawakened, and the Eucharist a mystery right dating all the way back to Egypt. With modern “paganism” being scarcely half a century old, Catholicism and Catholic Folk magic, Stregoneria, and Italian folk magic, are the vessels in which ancient paganism was preserved.Anyone who holds tightly to Roman Catholic belief systems can rightly be called pagan, and are called pagan by Protestants. What Catholics need to do is embrace their pagan genetics and celebrate the paganism that manifests in their religion, rather than allow Protestants and Fundamentalists to bully them into unnecessary defenses of their religion.

To all here:

Isn’t one of the basic tenets of Paganism that each finds their own path? That there are as many forms of Paganism as their are Pagans?

I would ask, too, that some of you get your information about Christianity from facts rather than long established “word of mouth” prejudices and what you see on television.

In fact, the ONLY belief that ALL Christians have in common is the belief that Jesus is the Christ.

Blessings to all.