There are a few inherent problems with being a NeoPagan polytheist. The biggest one is that "Neo-" out in front.
It's been a long time since someone tried to reincarnate a dead religion. Oh, the Abrahamic and Dharmic faiths go through revivals, sure. The form of Judaism we currently have exists because a bunch of priests of Yahveh went and made up a version of his cult that was not just henotheistic but monotheistic - Yahveh wasn't just the best god, he wasn't even just the only one that ought to be worshipped; now, he was the only god - and projecting that view back into their cultural history. (No one had made that claim since Akhenaton, but somehow this time it stuck.) None of the various Christian churches look anything like the ones Paul founded in the 30s and 40s CE. Etc., etc.
But reviving the old Classical Pagan practice in any form goes at least somewhat against their own ethos. All of the various cults practiced in Classical Greece and Rome, and presumably the portions of the Near East and Europe that were under their control at the time, respected "the customs of the forefathers" - ta patria. The cults were communal; while individuals certainly had their own devotions, the rites required priests, oracles, temples, and a critical mass of worshippers for sacrifices and rituals. Much of the important parts were never written down, or written only as lists - this many sheep, the hymn to Atargatis seven times, three handfuls of incense. Those lists were often essentially outline notes; they were reminders to jog the memories of the priests, scribes, and functionaries, who had been through the ritual so many times they didn't need more.
I, on the other hand, am a person practicing practically alone. As far as I know, there isn't another Levanto-Mesopotamian Syncretist Pagan - well, anywhere. The Natib Qadish are probably as close as it gets, and if there are any in Texas, I don't know about them. I haven't done this since I could talk. I don't know what the lists are shorthand for, most of the time. The myths that I have are fragmentary, and I don't know what role they played - moral fables? Just-so stories? - in the lives of the general worshippers. There are no temples, and not likely to be any soon; there aren't even shrines, unless I get it together to build one. I haven't been trained as a priestess, and I can't be - there's no priest left to do it. And worst of all, this isn't the custom of any of my forefathers (or foremothers). By descent, I'd have to be either a Celtic Pagan or one of the many flavors of Heathen (probably seithr or Vanatru). So from the perspective of the people who did it, my right to this practice is somewhat suspect.
And yet - does that matter? I know there is a cultus for the Phoenician gods in Lebanon; whether a genuine remnant or a rebirth, I do not know. Nor do I know whether they would welcome my pasty white colonialist ass. But the goddesses that call to me have Akkadian and Ugaritic names. Unverified personal gnosis is a messy thing, but at the end of the day it's often all we've got.
All of which is to say, I did tonight's solstice ritual for the CUUPs group I still find myself practicing with (despite now rather regretting my brief foray into Unitarian Universalism*) using the Canaanite deities, El and Asherah and Rahamayu, Shaharu and Shalimu and Shapshu, and trying to use a generally Levantine format. I don't know if I succeeded, but the other participants seemed to get something out of the ritual, and my matrons are at least not displeased with me.
I intend to stay part of the local Pagan community. I have no issues with the standard Wiccaform ritual (despite differences in flavor and language, even this ritual didn't stray too far from it), and often get something out of even the most vaguely-Celtic-by-way-of-Tolkienesque rituals if the people running them are any good. I like the magickal and divinatory practices, the energy-working, the sex-positivity, the tree-hugging respect for Nature, and the general respect for the female divine, and I can't get that anywhere else. But it's getting harder and harder to deal with duotheistic monist fluffybunnies and the folks who are there for the sacred party. I don't want the monarchical hierarchy that went with them back in the day, but I want temples. And imagining how they would be if they had gotten to live and grow for two thousand years, instead of being torn down for the marble and limestone to build churches and mosques, is very, very hard, especially without a community to do it with.
*A ha-ha-only-serious joke: "What's a Unitarian? A person who believes there is at most one god."
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
Friday, June 8, 2012
What I'd Like To Do
There seems to be a common experience among the Authenticity Cop wing of Paganism, one that pushes those of us who like talking and thinking about our religion (as opposed to those who are content to Just Do It, a viewpoint that was slammed shut for me by being brought up Lutheran and which I often envy deeply) towards either fairly traditional initiatory British Traditional Witchcraft or towards the various reconstructionist groups. My problem, so far, is that the group I want - the syncretistic Mediterranean-to-Mesopotamian one that covers what would have been the myriad religious and magickal traditions of the Babylonian empire at its height - doesn't exist. There's a Sumerian group in Texas, but (a) they don't quite meet my Authenticity Cop standards, and (b) I'm more interested in Babylon, Canaan, Syria, and Phoenicia than I am in Sumeria per se. The group I was dedicated into is mostly Celtic-focused with a sort of Dianic underpinning; while I still enjoy working with the members of the group, and want to finish my work with them, I don't think of them as my permanent home. The other group I'm working with is a CUUPs group and a bit of a mish-mash. I'm as dedicated as any to the prospect that Paganism is bound by common practice rather than common theology, but it would be nice to at least be working with people I shared some basic assumptions with.
A few months ago, Star Foster over at Pantheon posted a list of ten of her "unshakeable personal truths" that were making it difficult for her to find fellowship with most Pagan groups. I thought it might be an interesting exercise to go through the list and investigate where I agree and disagree. The parts in italics are direct quoted from the linked post.
1. The Gods are distinct, greater than myself, and have an interest in humankind.
This matches my experience exactly, and it's one of the things I constantly stumble over in my interactions with my fellow Pagans - I get and respect duotheism, even if it doesn't model my reality, but the ones who are clearly monotheistic or atheistic and still identify as Pagan weird me out.
2. Any unity beyond the Gods is not sentient. Monotheism, in any form, is incorrect.
Change "sentient" to "sophontic" and I more or less agree. I suspect that galaxies, galactic clusters, and the cosmos-as-a-whole have consciousnesses of a sort, and perhaps even something like personalities, but I don't think they have the sorts of awarenesses that could be described as "thinking" or "choosing" - and even if they did, I don't think they'd be the least bit concerned with us.
3. I am a polytheist, not an animist, a pantheist, a panentheist, a duotheist, a henotheist or a monotheist.
I am a polytheist, an animist, and a panentheist (and, to add one not on the list, a weak humanist). I am not a pantheist (except in the very vague sense outlined in #2), a duotheist (although I acknowledge that many of those in my circles are, and that this matches their perception of the divine, just not mine), a henotheist (although I have no problem with henotheists or monolators; I'm just not called to be that specific - polyamorous even here, I guess), or a monotheist (completely irreconcilable with my experience of the world). I am also not an agnostic or an atheist; I don't think the gods are merely metaphors or psychological archetypes (although they do tend to get caught up with both, especially in mythmaking).
4. Religion is the bond between humankind and the Gods, and its purpose is to foster excellence and virtue for the survival of the species.
I agree with the first part, and the second part is, for me, one of its many purposes. I see forging that bond between humankind and the gods, for the mutual benefit and enjoyment of all parties, as a purpose in and of itself - the primary purpose of religion. Fostering virtue is up there on the list, along with learning how to exist in harmony in the world, but it's that relationship that I see as the sine qua non of religion.
5. Religion is not what makes me feel good, nor is it therapy or pop-psychology.
I agree with this as stated, but there are aspects of religion and ritual - in particular, the repair of personal and community bonds with the gods - that can certainly be therapeutic, and if you're Doing It Right, ought to be. Similarly, if you are not behaving in a harmful way, or against the strictures of the gods you serve, and your religion is consistently making you feel bad, then you need a better religion.
6. Religious culture should be multi-generational and fully accessible.
I would add that this doesn't necessarily mean that every religious activity must be multi-generational and accessible; there is a place for, for instance, physical activities that not everyone is able to perform, whether due to age or infirmity, in individual rituals, for instance. But on the whole, I agree, and this is something the modern Pagan groups have had problems with - for instance, the local festival is on a very rough campground that is difficult to navigate for those who walk with canes, crutches, or wheelchairs.
7. Religion is a fully realized worldview and way of being. It is not loosely-connected disparate elements. It is coherent with a vocabulary sufficient to express all of it’s nuances and concepts clearly, but not bound by pure logic.
I'm not sure I understand the first part. I'm fairly sure that all of the modern Abrahamic and Dharmic religions actually encompass multiple worldviews, for instance, and I'd be leery of a reconstructionist Pagan practice that had a One Right True And Only worldview, so I suspect I'm missing something in the phrasing. I agree with the second sentence and I wish to the Gods the last were true - one of my constant frustrations is how badly the English vocabulary for religion has been purged of the proper words for magick, polytheology, and immanence.
8. Science is not opposed to religion, and very important for humanity to study and promote. However, the languages are not interchangeable. Zeus cannot be explained by string theory any more than a libation can cure cancer.
THIS, this, this, a thousand times this, glory and halleluasherah! And for me, this related back to my lament in #7 - we keep using words for magick and religion that probably were all right to use that way a thousand years ago, but since then they've migrated into Queen Science's kingdom, and they belong firmly to her, now - we need to find better ones, or at least a good way of marking these to show that we're not mushing them together.
9. What you believe matters as much as what you do. Only when in accord with a single vision can any physical act by humans be truly effective. This applies whether you are making the next Avengers movie, or building a temple to Athena.
I've seen too many important things happen by synchronicity, carelessness, or simple dumb luck to agree with this. For me, what you do is far, far more important than what you believe. Intent may be magick, but it pales next to actual words and deeds. Having said that, being in accord with one vision makes it far more likely that an act will have wealful rather than harmful effects - provided the vision was wealful to begin with . . .
10. The religious work we do should not be for ourselves, but for the generations to come.
I'd say both. Who knows whether what we imagine future generations will want and need will in fact be useful for them? What fills a need now will likely fill it later, too.
So, all in all, more agreement than disagreement, which is better than I've gotten with about 90% of the local Pagan groups, alas.
A few months ago, Star Foster over at Pantheon posted a list of ten of her "unshakeable personal truths" that were making it difficult for her to find fellowship with most Pagan groups. I thought it might be an interesting exercise to go through the list and investigate where I agree and disagree. The parts in italics are direct quoted from the linked post.
1. The Gods are distinct, greater than myself, and have an interest in humankind.
This matches my experience exactly, and it's one of the things I constantly stumble over in my interactions with my fellow Pagans - I get and respect duotheism, even if it doesn't model my reality, but the ones who are clearly monotheistic or atheistic and still identify as Pagan weird me out.
2. Any unity beyond the Gods is not sentient. Monotheism, in any form, is incorrect.
Change "sentient" to "sophontic" and I more or less agree. I suspect that galaxies, galactic clusters, and the cosmos-as-a-whole have consciousnesses of a sort, and perhaps even something like personalities, but I don't think they have the sorts of awarenesses that could be described as "thinking" or "choosing" - and even if they did, I don't think they'd be the least bit concerned with us.
3. I am a polytheist, not an animist, a pantheist, a panentheist, a duotheist, a henotheist or a monotheist.
I am a polytheist, an animist, and a panentheist (and, to add one not on the list, a weak humanist). I am not a pantheist (except in the very vague sense outlined in #2), a duotheist (although I acknowledge that many of those in my circles are, and that this matches their perception of the divine, just not mine), a henotheist (although I have no problem with henotheists or monolators; I'm just not called to be that specific - polyamorous even here, I guess), or a monotheist (completely irreconcilable with my experience of the world). I am also not an agnostic or an atheist; I don't think the gods are merely metaphors or psychological archetypes (although they do tend to get caught up with both, especially in mythmaking).
4. Religion is the bond between humankind and the Gods, and its purpose is to foster excellence and virtue for the survival of the species.
I agree with the first part, and the second part is, for me, one of its many purposes. I see forging that bond between humankind and the gods, for the mutual benefit and enjoyment of all parties, as a purpose in and of itself - the primary purpose of religion. Fostering virtue is up there on the list, along with learning how to exist in harmony in the world, but it's that relationship that I see as the sine qua non of religion.
5. Religion is not what makes me feel good, nor is it therapy or pop-psychology.
I agree with this as stated, but there are aspects of religion and ritual - in particular, the repair of personal and community bonds with the gods - that can certainly be therapeutic, and if you're Doing It Right, ought to be. Similarly, if you are not behaving in a harmful way, or against the strictures of the gods you serve, and your religion is consistently making you feel bad, then you need a better religion.
6. Religious culture should be multi-generational and fully accessible.
I would add that this doesn't necessarily mean that every religious activity must be multi-generational and accessible; there is a place for, for instance, physical activities that not everyone is able to perform, whether due to age or infirmity, in individual rituals, for instance. But on the whole, I agree, and this is something the modern Pagan groups have had problems with - for instance, the local festival is on a very rough campground that is difficult to navigate for those who walk with canes, crutches, or wheelchairs.
7. Religion is a fully realized worldview and way of being. It is not loosely-connected disparate elements. It is coherent with a vocabulary sufficient to express all of it’s nuances and concepts clearly, but not bound by pure logic.
I'm not sure I understand the first part. I'm fairly sure that all of the modern Abrahamic and Dharmic religions actually encompass multiple worldviews, for instance, and I'd be leery of a reconstructionist Pagan practice that had a One Right True And Only worldview, so I suspect I'm missing something in the phrasing. I agree with the second sentence and I wish to the Gods the last were true - one of my constant frustrations is how badly the English vocabulary for religion has been purged of the proper words for magick, polytheology, and immanence.
8. Science is not opposed to religion, and very important for humanity to study and promote. However, the languages are not interchangeable. Zeus cannot be explained by string theory any more than a libation can cure cancer.
THIS, this, this, a thousand times this, glory and halleluasherah! And for me, this related back to my lament in #7 - we keep using words for magick and religion that probably were all right to use that way a thousand years ago, but since then they've migrated into Queen Science's kingdom, and they belong firmly to her, now - we need to find better ones, or at least a good way of marking these to show that we're not mushing them together.
9. What you believe matters as much as what you do. Only when in accord with a single vision can any physical act by humans be truly effective. This applies whether you are making the next Avengers movie, or building a temple to Athena.
I've seen too many important things happen by synchronicity, carelessness, or simple dumb luck to agree with this. For me, what you do is far, far more important than what you believe. Intent may be magick, but it pales next to actual words and deeds. Having said that, being in accord with one vision makes it far more likely that an act will have wealful rather than harmful effects - provided the vision was wealful to begin with . . .
10. The religious work we do should not be for ourselves, but for the generations to come.
I'd say both. Who knows whether what we imagine future generations will want and need will in fact be useful for them? What fills a need now will likely fill it later, too.
So, all in all, more agreement than disagreement, which is better than I've gotten with about 90% of the local Pagan groups, alas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)