We need more pagans in the West

[big smile] Of course I do... but not, perhaps, what you might expect.

Leithart is a wise man, methinks. Complacency is a slow killer in more contexts than this one.

I am deeply touched, philosophically speaking, by his statement: The Church has triumphed over paganism before. But never before has she confronted a sophisticated civilization haunted by Christ.

"...haunted by Christ" describes perfectly how I see many of my unhappy Christian friends. I'll comment on the "triumph" in a separte post.

There is no growth without conflict. Conflict, per se, is neither good nor bad; the details are in the devils, as it were. ;-D

My only suggestion would be to modify Leithart's usage to "pagan sensibilities". One can learn about them by studying the interfaces between religions as in Voudon or Santeria, or in the more assimilated versions like Celtic Christianity. I know, and I deeply regret, that "you Christians are blind to the pagan roots of your beliefs" is what many will hear, and it unfortunately is the intended message from some of my siblings-in-faith. Rather, I submit, should you (general, Christian) examine your beliefs for what they are, not what they were, while exploring those roots.

Suggested reading topics: Balder (Norse), Dionysus and Prometheus (Greek), Mithras (late pagan Roman version of it) and the little we know about the Celtic tradition, especially Brighid, Lugh and the legends of Suibhne and Myrddin.

Oh, and stay away from Hamilton and Bullfinch. They are good starting places, but they leave alot of details out. Think of them as the Cliff Notes versions... :-)

"When it arrived in the world, Christianity announced the end of sacrifice." Christian theologian Peter Leithart

Huh!

Give me that really olde tyme religion :)

The call of the archetypes is always present, although muted by the extreme noise of modern society. With so much distraction occupying the mind, it is a wonder that anyone can hear the still small voice, be it of nature, the stars, or God.

On the eve of September 11th, I remember the thunderclap of that day's events 6 years ago brought a silent time where people were briefly shocked out of the lethargy and anesthesia of our daily addictions, and blind devotion to consumption.

Perhaps, we can learn to awaken without such extreme events, and learn how to carry a more vital and healthy awareness of what is important in life into each day.

Franklin, I want to preface this by assuring you that I'm not here referring to modern-day first world pagans such as yourself. You belong to a different category than the people I'm talking about.

But as far as people still living/practicing ancient pagan beliefs such as exist in many pockets especially of the third world, there is a simple reason why practitioners of primal religions so often embrace the Church and its message, and it is this:

They have seen Evil.

You can't practice those old ways (again, as they are practiced among many of the third world's adherents) without coming directly into contact with evil. If there are chants and charms meant to do good, rituals involving such things as crops and fertility and physical health, so much more so are there tendrils of the spirit tapping directly into malignancy, seeking power over one's enemies, death and destruction to those who cross you, waves of darkness to be controlled and poured out upon anyone whom you think has done, or is trying to do, harm to you. Superstition, credulity, ignorance may all play some role in this, but underneath all of it is evil itself, as real and as dangerous as it has been since Satan fell like lightening from the sky.

We are too civilized for evil, or so we think. Crimes happen because someone had an unhappy childhood or was failed in some way by the system. Most bad things happen because some mental aberration or chemical deficiency caused someone to behave irrationally and destructively. There's no real force of evil, only selfish or antisocial people who don't seem to understand all our society wants them to learn; they can best be taught to behave by doctors, lawyers, or prison wardens. There's certainly no need for anything as childish and trivial as prayer, in these unfortunate cases.

When we in the modern world are confronted by unquestionable evil we have no frame of reference for it. The planes that exploded in demonic wrath into the sides of the World Trade Center sent up plumes of smoke that turned the buildings into giant twin question marks in the sky; there was no explaining or rationalizing possible at that moment, only a terrible awareness that we've forgotten the answer to a question we no longer clearly remember, the question of the reality of evil.

The pagans in Africa and elsewhere have no need for such reminders. They enter the Church as a man enters a fortress, gladly and with a great deal of relief, knowing themselves to be protected from a force they know all too much about, and have not yet had time to grow too sophisticated to forget.

The problems of the Church stem from its inability to relate to the modern world. When Christianity became "THE" religion of the west, they proclaimed the Church as the only truth and did their best to supress all others. Time and progress could not be halted and the Church could not keep up. Without any serious competing worldview to temper and strengthen Christianity in a modern frame of reference, it faltered and became stagnant. Science (which progresses as new theories and evidence become available) became the foundation of the modern world because it opened our understanding of the "how" of the universe and removed the Church from its pedestal as the ONLY truth.

As a modern Pagan, my faith is not in conflict with science. Science is the how and religion is the why. It is unlikely that the Church will regain its position of the West's cultural standard bearer. It is also very unlikely that the Church will learn anything from the evolving societies of Africa, Asia, or South America. They are at a point in their development that we were at a very long time ago and modern Christians would not have the guts to do to them what their predecessors did to indigenous societies of North America and Europe to ensure Christianity as the only truth.

"The problems of the Church stem from its inability to relate to the modern world...Science (which progresses as new theories and evidence become available) became the foundation of the modern world because it opened our understanding of the 'how' of the universe and removed the Church from its pedestal as the ONLY truth."

That is the type of ignorance which has been heard for centuries. It was under the auspices of the Church that science and the rest of modern life came to be, despite early, middle and late paganism--including German Socialist paganism and atheistic Communism--both of which, while enjoying the benefits the Church brought to the world, regarded the Church as the enemy to be feared the most.

That fear, ContraryCrow, proved to be well placed, just as will be your fear. That's because the Church holds out the Creator as worthy of worship, while paganism whorships merely His creations. Power, earthly life, the modern version of Amon-Ra and sex are all temporary things, while the Creator and those that do His will are eternal.

The Creator, and those who do His will (it's written on every heart), are the Church, which always is in the modern world but never of the modern world. That's why it always appears to pagans that the Church has an "inability to relate to the modern world."

That is the "only truth" you'd best begin to concern yourself with, for the sake of your immortal soul.

Erin, I thank you for that offer of respect. I trust you.

I trust you, too, Cleveland. While you and Erin chose very different approaches to the issue, you both make the same point from where I sit:

We (general, Christian) put a face on evil, and we do not distinguish between the wholesale evil of an idea and the individual evil that any human is capable of.

I worded that assertively. I do not intend to put words in your mouths. I see this as an attitude, which both of you have expressed here in your own ways.

Erin, this is not intended to be a strawman or attempt to divert: during all those moments in all those places in history, where people were exiled, lynched, tortured or killed in the name of Christ, do you think the onlookers might have drawn a similar conclusion to yours, about witnessing evil? My point is simple: in our rush to understand, in our need to put a face on the unthinkable and unknowable, our biggest and worst mistake is to see the symbol as the actuality. Satan is alive and well, Erin; I have seen him with my own eyes looking at me from the faces of people I've encountered. I don't include a Satan in my personal beliefs, but I don't hesitate to use that symbol (the word I prefer to use is Adversary) where it fits and serves to convey my intended message. In my personal experience, Erin, Satan worshippers have all been Christians first. I have never met a pagan who worshipped Satan.

So too, Cleveland, do I want to express to you that the label is not the thing. The Socialist Pagans of the Third Reich (and they were a major challenge to label, being really a broad mixture of ethnocentric worship, Christian mysticism and archeo-pagan symbology) created their own justifications out of whole cloth; it is, if you will forgive one argumentative statement, disingenuous to connect them to any categorical group of traditions, whether it be Christian, pagan or other.

And I have no problem stipulating your comparison, that pagans "worship" the creation rather than the creator. The mistake you make (personal, I am seeing, general I have seen) is in ascribing something to it that is not there: that we, pagans in general, reject the notion of the creator. We do not. If I may offer back at you a similar generalization to rebut your comparison: monotheists worship the abstract, thinking that putting a human face on it makes it immediate; pagans worship the pieces of the creator that are in the creation, not the semblance or structure of the creation per se. Monotheists place an intermediary between themselves and the divine; pagans experience the divine directly. Monotheists focus on a "big picture"; pagans look to the details.

In the end, Erin's assertion for why there is this modern assimilation between pagans and Christianity is true, but is not the only reason. There is a complex dynamic going on; people seek relief, even rescue, but in a very practical and real sense they will come to Jesus much more readily because the missionary is helping them feed and house themselves where their own political/spiritual "leaders" do not or cannot, and not just because of the message of salvation. In a very real and practical sense, if Christianity should replace the prior traditions amongst the political leaders, and they return to the old practical ways of starvation and poverty, then a Muslim or Bahai or Hindu or Buddhist might come in and provide them with a replacement for Christianity.

The pagan sensibility, if I am forced to choose one phrase, is in the practical, here and now. You might convince some or even many in a longstanding Christian culture that the afterlife is going to be good enough to make up for the misery of this world, but you are not going to do that with a group, clan, tribe or nation who has lived that misery every day.

I see that my name was not carried into my previous post. In case there is anyone who doesn't immediately recognize my pompous, longwinded style: September 11, 2007 9:41 AM is mine. ;-D

Rob, the only valid answer to your question starts with "For myself..."

It is invalid from my POV, and from any direction (monotheist or pagan), to make that comparison in a general way. It is the source of my personal grief with monotheists (not just Christians) and a big part of most arguments I have with them.

Spirit is such a personal, intimate, visceral experience. We can (and probably should) look with 20-20 hindsight on religions and their impact on the human condition; but to take that and piecemeal apply it to one individual after another is the single, worst opening to abuse and coercion I know of. Abuse and coercion don't happen every time, or even often enough now to make it a primary point here. That's just how I am choosing to express my position.

'Rob, the only valid answer to your question starts with "For myself..."'

'It is invalid from my POV, and from any direction (monotheist or pagan), to make that comparison in a general way.'

Not much to talk about in that regard then, I guess, since Christians do not normally limit the spiritual to the individual, personal and subjective.

Sorry, Rob. There is some good discussion to be had there, but I am likely the wrong pagan to have it with... except, perhaps, starting with this:

I don't see it as a limitation. I see it as a matter of choice. In my personal practice, and in the practice of many others of my acquaintance in a variety of paths, we focus on the personal and subjective; it is not to the exclusion of the abstract, it's a matter of balance of time and energy.

I'm not sure this is pertinent to the present topic, but that's my thought on it.

Ouch. We seem to be in that Twilight Zone of cross posting. :-)

I believe that I have a clear understanding of Christianity, and have come to that point after years of having a faulty understanding. I also think, to be fair, that my understanding will never be a complete one. I depend on people like you (and Erin and Cleveland) to offer to correct me.

My revealed vs. acquired comparison is one I've been working on for some years now. I believe that, whether faulty or not, that I have a clear view of Christianity as it is experienced by the masses of the faithful. I would submit, respectfully, that flaws are there because they belong there; one cannot expect the masses to understand, let alone need to understand, the questions and discussions raised by St. Augustine, Martin Luther or C.S. Lewis. Call it a lack rather than a flaw; I don't find that lack in need of criticism, per se.

Slight change of direction - though I'm not sure anyone is listening anymore.

In the absence of "more pagans," what attracts converts wholesale to Christianity? Formerly-Buddhist, formerly-South Vietnam has experienced an evangelization since the victory of the North. People abandoned Buddhism and embraced a very energetic brand of Christianity even against the wishes of the communist authorities. There is no animal or human sacrifice in Buddhist practice, no spells, no embracing of darkness. Quite the contrary - the teachings are about keeping an open, loving heart in the face of adversity and not grasping and identifying with greedy or hateful ideas that pop into one's head. Yet convert they have.

What accounts for this? Any ideas?

After WWII, Japan experienced the "Rush Hour of the Gods" in which new religions or new versions of the old ones, sprang up to replace traditional forms.

These examples suggest that people abandon what they were taught when life circumstances deal a crushing blow, such that the people are ready to abandon/reject eveything related to the destroyed society. They may interpret the defeat as a message from the spiritual world that they needed to be chastened, that they were on the wrong path, etc.

On the other hand, why are formerly-Catholic Central American and soon-to-be-formerly-Catholic South American countries adopting evangelical protestant forms?

I don't think the pagan/Christian thesis holds water.

When I went back and read Leithart's piece in its entirety, it called to mind another article from First Things from several years ago. This one is much longer and more detailed but it speaks to some of the same issues that Leithart's piece does.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=533