Similarities in Christianity and Pagan(ism?) - Page 2

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by wombatclay

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Neo-pagan and historical pagan- you've hit on one of the divisions. "Historical pagan" or "classical pagan" generally refers to people practicing a non-christian religion in the past. However, neo-pagan is a bit harder to define. Some modern pagans practice what are called "reconstruction" or "recon" religions... members of these religions try to the best of their ability (lots of research, history, archaeology, etc) to practice their religion the way it would have been done thousands of years ago. So they learn the original language, do a lot of research, often adopt the traditions of the culture that supported the original religion, learn traditional crafts or practices of that culture, etc. Perhaps think of some of the Orthodox christian groups as a comparison? The religion and it's surrounding practices are preserved as "unchanged" as possible since the underlying belief is that the religion "has it right the way it is" and so to change it would be to lose or dilute something special/sacred.

Now, these "recon" groups are technically modern... and so might be considered "neo-pagan" but the people who practice these faiths would probably dispute that categorization. Just like someone in an orthodox christian group might dispute being placed in the same group as, say, a charismatic protestant group that has a more "recent" founding and "fluid" set of ritual practices. If that makes sense?

Yes, this is an interesting division. And I would certainly say that any continuing tradition (not a reconstructionist group) wasn't really a neo-pagan group.

But reconstruction groups... I don't know, for one thing, the idea of reconstructing an old religion is in itself such a modern idea. And even with great research, in many cases there are so many pieces missing that need to be filled in - It seems to me that it is so much more accurate to say that they are inspired by ancient religions. And in most cases, I have to say I find many of the sensibilities really modern.

I'm not sure I would compare them to the Orthodox church, since a) the OC is an unbroken tradition b0 although many practices haven't changed much, they are not all considered central to the faith or doctrine, they are traditions, not Tradition, and c) it is a living tradition, so it would not be true to say that there was no development of the tradition, or even Tradition. So they might be better compared to the kind of living tradition of paganism noted above.

Now, a really good comparison in Christianity would, I think, be attempt to reconstruct Celtic Christianity, which lost many of it's distinctive features a long time ago. Some people are trying to recapture that though, through self-consciously adopting their practices. But still, they aren't Celts, and it's easy to see that they are people who are creating their reconstruction based on modern values.

The other reason, though, I like to differntiate them, has to do with my education, when I spent a lot of time studying ancient "pagan" philosophy. If I say pagan, I mean Plato, so to make it clear (to myself, if no one else) I tend to call modern groups neo-pagans, or by the name for their specific tradition if that is more applicable.


On another note - are most Wiccans that close to what Gardner produced/described? I find most of the ones I have met seem a lot... nicer and less dark.

[wombatclay]

BlueGoat- I was trying to think of comparisons that would be familiar to people without a background in religious studies. So more "similarity in flavor" than "similarity in lineage". Plus, since most of my field work was with modern groups (hard to do the whole participant observation thing with people dead a few thousand years ) that rejected the term "neo-pagan" as being another section of the pagan umbrella and not one "they" shared, I tend to use modern vs classical when discussing the temporal divide and then "neo-pagan" as a further subdivision of modern paganism. But that's more of an "anthropologist" habit than a solid "academic" best practice.

But I agree that recon traditions have a lot of limitations in that those religions evolved to suit the needs and resources of specific times and cultures and without those cultures the religion itself is difficult to recreate or maintain properly. Plus, even when the intent is to accurately recreate X, modern sensibilities (not to mention legalities!) can get in the way. Celtic Christianity is a good modern example (though maybe not familiar to a wide audience) since it's also trying to recreate something without the cultural context... there's a large Celtic Christian community on the West Coast of the US (or there was a few years ago) and I had hoped to spend some time with them but it never panned out.

Wicca- there's a lot of variation. I've certainly seen groups that were pretty explicit in their "old school" Gardnerian practices, and groups that are equally "old school" in terms of following A. Crowley. But there are plenty of others that use a wiccan framework without any interest in the concepts put out by the "early teachers" like Gardner. For example, Dianic Wicca is certainly wiccan, but it's not something Gardner would have been happy with! And some traditions (like the Frosts and the Feri tradition) modified themselves as they experimented... some of their earlier rituals/practices are pretty fringe to modern sensibilities and realities (specifically the physical/sexual elements), but those practices shifted organically as the culture changed and today you probably wouldn't find a group that described itself as following the Frosts that used the earlier rituals.

My own experience (ymmv, especially since there are variations between countries with the US, Canada, and the UK all having different pagan cultures) has been that the "old school" groups tend to keep quiet and simply do their own thing... they're not generally open to the public or interested in "advertising". They don't generally join COG or set up flashy tents at things like PSG or Starwood. In part because they really are "mystery" religions where you need to study and be accepted and swear oaths in order to move through the religion and while plenty of people have broken those oaths and written about the details of their experiences, practitioners and believers aren't going to do that. Especially not on an open website!

Obviously there are exceptions but I think the "softer gentler" groups are the ones that are more in the public eye since many times they are intentionally trying to dispel negative perceptions of paganism. So they host the open rituals and produce the cds and offer classes and invite the public to watch.

Which creates it's own set of concerns with some groups feeling that they are "more" pagan than others. But that's a whole different thread.

[Mountaingirl79]

Wow, I'm glad to see the stereotype of a witch is alive and well...( wearing scary black costumes or skyclad with a black cauldron? LOL) Sure, people do those things but I think it's a lot like thinking all christians are bible thumping fundamentalists. ( Which is wrong, we all know christians come in all flavors..lol) Pagans come in all flavors too. The May Pole is just a pole with streamers that you dance around joyfully ( usually while fully clothed, unless you want to be "that guy" LOL) while holding the streamer, so that the streamer wraps around the pole.

Me and Dh and the kids are pagan with a leaning towards wicca. All of our rituals and celebrations are kid friendly, we even did the maypole at the kid's school last year ( Private school that celebrates all religions) during the May Day celebration. Celebrating fertility doesn't mean you have to get naked and be all sexual with each other. It could also mean celebrating the fertility of earth as the flowers bloom.

[Mountaingirl79]

Oh also, me and dh and our witchy friends are ANYTHING but dark and spooky. ( I don't even know if I own any black....)