UnPause, Follow Up and Moving Forward
by Ruby Sara
Friends,
My last post postulated my theory that because I perceive that our set of religions do not share a unitive story, i.e. a theology, set of beliefs/practices, or a more or less general value framework, that I believe it might not be accurate or useful to code these unique religions under a single, capitalized word (that signifies a specific religion/religious identity); and that by using the term in lower case to denote an adjective or category of religion instead may be a more useful choice in light of deepening interreligious and intrareligious dialogue, as well as helping to articulate clearer boundaries of belief/practice in our communities, leading to rituals with ever increasing specificity and richness in their storytelling, and to solid value frameworks that could then be built upon in seeking communal social justice work. It was a semantic choice that I liked because it called attention to a set of questions I find important (please see Johnny Rapture’s post on The Great Tininess as well as Hystery’s post on Plainly Pagan for some more thinking on this unfolding set of arguments). Frankly, I still believe all this (though I remain as ever open to the possibility that I will change my mind…tomorrow, five minutes or 15 years from now). I also believe that by participating in this choice, I (and the handful of other folks who may make this choice, or make similar claims regarding the umbrella term, capitalized or no) am merely changing the way I talk about our religions – a not insignificant venture, for sure, but certainly not the same as denigrating other people’s choices, beliefs, or past/current interfaith work. I have participated in countless conversations around this and other theological subjects with people in my local community. I am not pulling these thoughts out of the aether, and I’ve made some reference to these questions on this blog in recent memory. The experiment was in deepening that question. However, it was pointed out in the comments section that some felt that this semantic choice was an act of disrespect, so I hesitate to continue to spell the word in the lower case because I don’t wish to cause any further offense or derail any future posts. I regret the anger and hurt caused over this issue of non-capitalization, and I do not want to additionally distract from the larger questions, which I think are important. I also find the arguments regarding honoring the importance of self-naming, a subject that Ali of Meadowsweet and Myrrh brought up on Johnny Rapture’s blog recently, to be deeply compelling.
I will not continue to spell Pagan with the lower case here on this blog. What I will do is limit my use of the term as a religious signifier, with exceptions when referring to the community at large. And I will be reposting a revised draft of my last post (see below), as I believe it contains references to these developing ideas that I find useful for those following the wayward and sometimes funny-shaped arc of my thinking on the matter.*
I remain firm in my belief that given these questions it is not constructive for me to speak about Pagan values/ethics/theology. It is constructive for me however to talk about earth-centered values/ethics/theologies (a categorical descriptor that includes the beliefs/actions of many different religions), and/or Gospel Pagan / Rootwater (a name for a specific religious system) values/ethics/theology, so that is what I will do. It is always a danger that one day I will fall off this tightrope, but for now, I’m still attempting to maintain my balance. I don’t think there’s a net down there.
If you find this whole line of thinking, and/or my shaky attempts at both honoring my own convictions and process while simultaneously holding the beliefs of others in respectful balance, to be disingenuous or offensive, you are welcome to email me to talk to me about it, or of course you can certainly always stop reading – that is your prerogative, and it is after all just a blog, and definitely and for sure not a papal bull or holy writ. Of course I’d rather you stay! But I wish you many blessings of the Mama if you do not.
This blog has always been two things – a love letter to the Earth Mama, and an exploration of my thoughts regarding theology and religion, predominantly but not restricted to those religions that honor Her above all. It will continue to be both of those things. I am sincerely grateful for those who have read and continue to read my words and/or post their thoughts. In my next post, I hope to explore the interplay between the value of simplicity and the spiritual importance of color in a post where I will revisit, under the rubric of earth-centered and Gospel Pagan / Rootwater theologies, some of my thoughts about plain dress/living.
*I do sincerely regret that I cannot resurrect many of the comments that were present on that post. Many of the comments were engaged in immensely interesting discussions regarding the greater question of definitions and umbrella terms. Having never really deleted a post like that w/ comments attached, I didn’t think that there might have been a better way to do it that would save everything somewhere for a possible future resurrection…though there may have been. So please don’t take this as some kind of retroactive sneaky way of deleting the conversation – it was a simple matter of tech unsavvy-ness. If you’re feeling particularly energetic, please feel free to post your thoughts again to the re-post. Note, however, that there is now something of an ad hoc comment policy in place, and I hope the conversation can be conducted as just that – a conversation, preferably between friends (friends that might shout at each other, but who know where the limits of friendly argument lie).
**Re: A comment policy. I think comment policies on small blogs like mine are kind of silly, but I also think it’s important to be transparent. Please note that certainly not all of these following items happened in the last thread – I’m just being thorough. I sincerely don’t expect to have to implement this policy hardly at all in the future, but I guess it’s good to get it out there. Therefore, my comment policy goes like this: all constructive debate and commentary, even very heated, is welcome. Emotionality is welcome, especially if the commenter is honest about their emotions. Name-calling and posts that add nothing to the conversation other than schadenfreude, mockery, and interpersonal carping will be deleted on sight, as will any comment that contains racist, sexist, homophobic or any other oppressive language. I am the grand arbiter of what constitutes these items, because it is my blog. Accusations of censorship will be cheerfully deleted. These are the internets, my friends, and if you feel your voice is being unheard here in these limited pages, then I heartily encourage you to start a blog of your own.
The thing I mentioned in passing…the implication that I found distasteful…is the notion that unity of belief will provide unity of values or unity, period, which it surely will not. “Christians” don’t engage in interfaith dialogues; individual representatives of specific denominations do. Christians as a whole emphatically do NOT share values. It also comes off to me like people are bothered that the Pagan community is *so very diverse* and going in different directions. Not only does this not bother me, it’s what I LIKE about it. As one of *my* local peeps told me recently, “I love the fact that I can go to a Pagan event or among a group of Pagans, and find somebody doing something I’ve never heard of before. Then I get to ask them questions.” It’s this mode of curiosity that I value among other things.
I feel that some of the impulse to define what “Pagan” is (or isn’t), rather than just your own little patch of practice, can come from a desire to be seen as an expert or authority on the subject. I am not saying you are doing that, but I have definitely seen people do it and that accounts for some of my dislike for the impulse. The truth is that job has already gotten too big for any of us; we know who the Pagans are by calling a Pagan meeting and seeing who shows up. I’m ok with that. It works fine.
Hello Scamis!
Your points are well-taken, and in fact, I’m not sure we’re in disagreement. I don’t really want to nail down a definition of Paganism, as I too see this as not possible (I do kind of think this would be groovy *if* possible, and if the definition chosen by the majority excludes me, I’m happy to burble off somewhere else where I do fit…and I may go back and forth on that, but at the moment, I agree that it’s not possible and perhaps not desirable). But given that, I think we might be better served by being very clear in our use of the term *not* to signify *a* specific religion, but as a categorical term that covers many religions (I take issue with some of our definitions of Paganism even as a category, but that might be a different discussion). This is why I have said in this and the last post that what I aim to do is discuss values and theologies from *my* “patch of practice,” instead of writing about values and calling them Pagan, as though Paganism is *a* religion and not a whole set of different religions.
Language is not perfect, so my phrase “Unitive Story” is not perfect. I do think that religious groups have…pivots…pivot stories around which they move. Paganism has no one pivot…or even two…it has a million, and therefore no cohesion as a religion – and that’s fine with me, but to call it one creates, in my personal experience, difficulties in interfaith dialogue, and in intrafaith moments, for example when attending “Pagan” rituals that are more or less ostensibly Wiccan in their structure and liturgical theology. To call a Wiccan ritual “Pagan” in the spirit that “Pagan” is a specific religion creates a situation where either you *are* defining Paganism (as synonymous with Wicca), or you are belying the claim that “Pagan” is an all inclusive term. I may not be articulating this well (I’m fairly exhausted at the moment).
I appreciate your comment, thank you for it!
RS
I bet the trad Wiccans in the vicinity would complain that it was obviously NOT a Wiccan ritual, and therefore calling it “Pagan” made more sense.
I don’t actually see a problem with doing a “Pagan” ritual based on Wiccan liturgy. OR a “Pagan” ritual based on a libation or blot. I don’t think that doing so defines “Pagan” as synonymous with any of the source traditions, in the sense of being exclusively that. The point of Pagan as a term is that there’s a relationship between all those religions, such that any one or all of them is equally “Pagan” and representative. Except possibly in terms of sheer numbers which is why the “Pagan” ritual so often looks awfully Wiccan. But at PPD in MY town, our opening ritual was in a distinctly not-Wiccan, Hellenic style, and other stuff during the day according to whomever stepped up.
Would you say that because most of the time when people do a “interdenominational” Christian service, it follows a Protestant model, that therefore Christianity is synonymous with Protestantism? That makes no sense to me. In interfaith groups I’ve seen, when someone gets up to offer a prayer, they do it in their own tradition’s style. It’s understood that other people will get their own chance, and while the specific language is often inclusive, nobody tries to represent everyone there. It would be a little presumptuous of them to do so.
Nobody, no ritual, no specific action or musing on Pagan topics has to represent all Pagans, everywhere, in order to be valid or to be “Pagan.” That way lies madness.
It would be nice to see more “just Pagan” rituals done in a variety of styles. But…at least in my observation, it’s not merely that the Wiccan Borg have assimilated everyone, it’s that non-Wiccans are often actively resistant to any of their stuff being included in “generic Pagan” activities. If the non-Wiccan groups want to be more represented, they need to step up and do more. More open rituals, more public rituals at gatherings, and so on. And not bitch when people pick up their style and go do something else with it, because that is what happens when you do a ritual for fifty people and some of them decide that was really cool. Now, if they try to step up and get rebuffed, then they absolutely have a right to raise hell about it. But in my own experience, gathering and event organizers LOVE to have more people doing stuff.
Ruby, I just wanted to say that I have always appreciated your beautiful use of language, your obvious passion for matters of spirit, and your openness to dialogue. I think it was one more example of your courage to put your thoughts out there in the blogosphere and I’m sorry if peoples’ comments did not demonstrate an understanding of the genuine thirst for connection and deepening that I know you intended. Continue to pray without ceasing. You inspire me. I’m sure many others feel as I do.
Your plan to speak about earth-centered values/ethics/theologies and/or Gospel Pagan / Rootwater is a good one. I find that naming oneself with specificity is empowering.
Also, I think we are all really lucky that you have such an extensive religious studies, post-colonial theory, and theology background as well as exemplary literary talents.
Scamis,
My example may not have been in depth enough. Certainly I can see your point – yes, people can attend a Pagan ritual and know that it is not representative of Pagans everywhere. Frankly, I have a LOT of thoughts in response to your good questions, and not enough time to do them all justice in this response, but I do want to make two points:
1. Your analogy is inaccurate. Wicca is not to Paganism as Protestantism is to Christianity. You are correct that Christianity can be enormously diverse – absolutely, and I am well aware of it. However, even in a deeply ecumenical service you will find Unitive Stories that link the participants, no matter their interpretations. Let’s say I am officiating a Christian worship service. If I tell people I am leading a Christian service and open the service by saying “O Great Lord Anubis!” burn a bunch of Kyphi incense, and then read passages from the Egyptian Book of Coming Forth By Day, I find it incredibly doubtful that attendees would say “what an interesting Christian service that was.” Even if I did it in protestant Christian church style – with bulletins, pews and hymns, I don’t think anyone would think that was a Christian service. That’s because no matter the denomination or sect, if I go to a Christian service, unless they identify as explicity universalist (like some Quaker groups), I expect to hear about God, Jesus and/or the Bible. That’s because these are concrete pivots around which Christianity turns.
Hystery supposed on her blog that “Paganism” could be likened to the term “Abrahamic.” This is a very interesting idea, and makes more sense than the correlation of “Paganism” to “Christianity.” When members of Abrahamic religions get together, they consider in an interfaith event. When Pagans get together, we don’t, and I’m wondering why not.
2. “Nobody, no ritual, no specific action or musing on Pagan topics has to represent all Pagans, everywhere, in order to be valid or to be “Pagan.” That way lies madness.”
Agreed. Which is why “Paganism” is not *a* religion, *a* spiritual path, or *a* tradition of belief. It is a category of disparate religions, spiritual paths, and traditions. The problem I perceive lies with using the word as though it *is* a religion. It cannot be both things. *Either* it is a category of different religions and therefore it is not possible or desirable to pin down a concrete theological definition / set of beliefs/rituals/actions / ethical/value frameworks that define it, OR “Paganism” is a religion and as such should have these shared stories.
In Texas, where I grew up, we called all carbonated drinks “Cokes.” Score one for Coca-Cola — hegemonic branding of an entire area of the US. “I want a Coke!” “What kind?” “Sprite!” But Sprite is not Coke. It tastes completely different and has different packaging. It is a carbonated drink, and the can shape is similar. You can call a Sprite a Coke all day long and it doesn’t make it a Coke, though they share categorical similarities. And when I moved to Colorado – I had a hell of a time ordering what they so ridiculously called “pop,” because I insisted on calling all pop “Coke.”
Now, this is ultimately a silly illustration, because really it doesn’t matter much whether one calls all carbonated beverages Cokes, so that’s kind of where the usefulness ends. But I think it *is* important how we talk about religion. There comes a point when this all becomes a bunch of verbal wrangling, I’m aware. But I believe that this question has “on the ground” implications for interfaith dialogue, community building, and ritual practice. At some point, I should explore why I believe this in more detail, and I will…good topics for future posts!
RS
But, as other people have pointed out, people do practice “Paganism” as a religion and use that word to describe what they do, even when what they do is fairly diverse from each other much less other Pagans, and people go right on practicing Wicca, etc. and calling it Pagan. I simply don’t buy that that either/or choice must be made, because it demonstrably doesn’t. There’s a problem with saying something can’t/doesn’t exist when it’s right in front of you *and has been going on for decades*.
Not only do I not think there’s an either/or choice there, I don’t think making it would provide anything useful. It will *not* provide more unity in a practical sense. It will *not* provide shared values. And trying to impose or insist on theological unity would tend to suppress open discussion and an ongoing, dynamic, developing understanding of the Divine, the open-ended, adventurous nature of the theology that we have. I think that’s the *worst possible* outcome…worse than Pagans fragmenting, or having a hard time participating in interfaith discussions (which I don’t have, btw), or any of the other posited consequences of not having it.
My reaction to your statements that we somehow need more unity of practice, theology, etc. to be a religion is that you’re not only telling me that the tree in front of you is not a tree, you’re trying to kill the very thing that I love about Pagans. I think that, more or less, is precisely why you got such vehement reactions.
Rick and Cathryn,
Thank you for your comments!
I appreciate all the comments here – including the ones that challenge me!
RS
“But, as other people have pointed out, people do practice “Paganism” as a religion and use that word to describe what they do”
Scamis makes a good point here. What we have is the word Pagan describing two different things — it’s a homonym.
First, we have pagans as the practitioners of a group of western, non-Abrahamic, religions.
Second, we have Pagans as practitioners of an eclectic set of practices, largely taken from the above group, but also from African Diasporic traditions, Hinduism, various Native American religion, and others. These practitioners are not members of the faith traditions from which they borrow practice and identify as ‘Pagan’. I believe they do have a shared beliefs and values which are broadly earth-affirming, pantheistic, and egalitarian, and individualistic. Because they value individualism, they have somewhat different practices, but believe that all life-affirming paths are valid, that they are all on the same journey toward an undefined enlightment/bliss, and that they can learn from one another. These folks are for the most part book-taught, or are members of short-lived ‘traditions’ (longer-lived traditions become ossified into their own religious group, like the Minoan Tradition).
Pagans will often self-identify as ‘Eclectic Wiccans’, ‘Goddess worshiper’, ‘Kitchen Witch’, ‘Kemetic Wiccan’, etc, which signals the flavor of practices they engage in. These folks should not be confused with Gardnerian Wiccans, Hellenes, Traditional Witches, or Kemets, all of whom are pagans and members of the source groups from which Pagans build their religious framework.
In my experience, the Pagans who come to gatherings or events make up the bulk of pagans. I’m not sure if that’s because such events are more suited to those who are eclectic, or if because most of the folks who have the impulse to become pagan (few of us are born into it) have a deep curiosity and willingness to engage in new forms of religious expression.
[...] not news that I’ve been thinking quite a bit about what I call a “unitive vision/story” and the Pagani. I believe that religions turn around these formative and unifying stories – they are the basis [...]