Baggage and Reactionary Definitions

Baggage is one of the major topics which I harp on as a cause of major issues with Paganism. In this context “baggage” can run a gamut of incidences: unidentified emotional hangers-on, obvious biases based off of previous interactions or disappointments, or even trauma which needs to be addressed, but nevertheless colors the topic. It largely is considered an emotional response (“emotional baggage”) and there is an implicit assumption that “baggage” is negative. Baggage of all kinds can have an impact on the types of discussions which are had.

Paganism is no exception.

After all, how could it be? Many people come to Paganism after a less-than-affectionate parting with Christianity, or otherwise have had some previous experiences which color them to the prevalence of Christian overculture. As a religious expression which spent a great deal of its life as a counter-cultural representation that defined itself by what it was not, it’s understandable that Paganism has in some way internalized a basic reaction towards what people view as fundamental concepts to Christianity.

For instance, it is popularly considered to be not dogmatic, focusing on ritual and not belief. It is often decried that there are no “Pagan Popes”, or other such authority figures when a greater accountability or organizational effort is made. It is not a religion which concerns itself with morality. It is not a religion with “Sin”. It is an inclusive religious understanding, and telling people they are not welcome or do not belong is seen as aberrant. There’s no place for hierarchy, and very little emphasis on the division of labor in terms of priestly duties.

All these, and many more, are hallmarks of popular Pagan attitudes towards their religion.

But they are not attitudes of Paganism-as-a-religion. They’re not reasoned arguments which benefit the religious understanding of Paganism, they’re not laying the foundations or furthering some of the discussion which can aid in building something new. They’re not unpacking these concepts in a useful way. They’re attitudes of reaction. Discussions about Sin (and I’m picking on “Sin” because it’s the current hot topic, and this actually came up in other social media circles in June) don’t gain traction because of the assumption that it is something that Christians do, and that Pagans do not do. There are mischaracterized beliefs that “Sin” is a Christian intrusion into a people who had no concept of the idea of violation of divine (or mortal) law.

And concepts like sin are not alone. Paganism is replete with attitudes which ultimately have no standing in light of evidence, yet nevertheless are perpetuated by popular opinion or emotional appeals. It took a concerted effort for the idea of genuflection in Heathenry to not be associated with a type of Christian subservience (“Heathens don’t kneel to our gods! We’re not Christians!”) and we still have to fight the misinformation that people spread about it. Some hardcore reconstructionists have problems with the idea of a “personal relationship” with deities because of the overabundance of “Jesus loves me” themes. Religious purity and personal pollution. Prescribed and proscribed religious ritual convention. These are just a few examples.

It happens. After all, these issues are built upon a foundation of previous experience. But they’re not constructive attitudes when they don’t lead to a greater discussion. They’re attitudes of Paganism-as-not-Christianity.

Pagans defining themselves by what they are not is absolutely not a new concept. Even here, in this blog space, I had a handful of years where I did it. And then I made a concerted effort to really take a look at what I was doing, be constructive, and approach my practice(s) positively. Which meant unpacking and working through any baggage I had from Christianity.

There’s an interesting phenomenon when Paganism is defined solely as a reaction to Christianity.

When one reacts to Christianity, they often end up with something that looks like Christianity

Looks familiar, doesn’t it?  Artist: Forvrin.

You end up with something that looks an awful lot like Christianity.

Certain constructs exist in religion that transcend any one particular paradigm. Yoking them to a singular religious expression does disservice to the tradition and gives rise to ignorant attitudes about them. We each, as Pagans, have the individual obligation to make a concerted effort to move beyond our preconceived notions towards these constructs. This is of paramount importance if we want to be able to approach these important concepts in a mature way.

Many Pagans have developed, adopted, or continued traditions which carry some kind of wider stigma or baggage when it is placed within the attitudes of the modern world. For instance, certain attitudes of Pagan women have taken to veiling themselves due to devotional or sacred reasons – a topic which caused some amount of controversy in the Pagan blogosphere four years ago. Divisive attitudes towards women purposely covering their head had less to do with the theological merits of the action and more to do with notions and interpretations of the apparent lack of agency found in perceptions from the Muslim world. These were applied broadly to the whole tradition of religious head-covering as a mandated aspect of some of these religious traditions.

It doesn’t end there, and does not remain within practical traditions. Christian and monotheistic baggage informs character critiques, as well. “One man cannot serve two masters” is a common refrain that I have personally heard from Heathens who have specific issues with the practice of multiple polytheistic traditions. As I have written at length on this blog, these attitudes simply do not hold water in light of traditional polytheistic mutability. I view them to be more likely post-Christian baggage, rather than any concrete view of a traditional religious identity.

Baggage and reactionary thought has been utilized in order to discredit another position. “Fundamentalism” is a word that is bandied around as a destabilizing scare word in order to undermine the credibility and attack the character of another, and relies entirely on Christian baggage and associations with wider monotheistic fundamentalist persecution to operate. In reality, Pagan “fundamentalism” is a pathetic scare word, but it still carries those connotations. True story: I have been accused of being a right wing fascist and fundamentalist strictly because I clearly define a line (using academics) between what polytheism is (worship of more than two gods) and what it is not (worship of two or less gods), and refuse to entertain the “soft/hard polytheism” frivolity all together.

Contemporary Paganism cannot properly flourish in the shadow of the Christian bogeyman, jumping at every turn where there’s a concept or theme which might have some comparative similarity to the other religious institution. Purposely neutering intellectualist debates because of baggage stunts the vibrancy and shoehorns Paganism and all the Pagan traditions into an inverse representation of Christendom. It limits the ability of people to think about what they are, and it tethers this non-Christian religious orientation in a very fundamental way to Christianity. What’s more, it constantly puts Contemporary Paganism on the defensive. If we have to establish ourselves by what we are not, in essence have to defend our choices of religious belief to ourselves, then how can we be expected to respectfully articulate our viewpoints to people that hold differing perspectives?

If a person encounters concepts like purity, miasma, or some other concept of spiritual pollution and finds oneself “emotionally thrown back into a place of shame”, that is on them to work through. It is not on the group to work through for them. These people do not have the right to direct the flow of conversation in order to mitigate their personal deficiencies and feelings of inadequacy, simply because they seemingly lack the capacity to address their emotional attachments to these terms or concepts.

Obviously, there are people who have suffered extreme emotional and mental trauma which they associate with wider pre-Christian religious experiences. I am not denigrating those experiences, victim blaming, or otherwise diminishing that experience.

However, there is a certain maturity expected when engaging in philosophical and theological discussion. If someone wants to be a Pagan, be a Pagan. Do not be a Pagan-chained-to-Christianity. Or monotheism. Or anything else that is not-Paganism. Entering the wider dialogue of theological debate means accepting that there are multiple worldviews, approaching them rationally, and not engaging in knee-jerkism.

If you’re going to join the discussion, you can’t hobble yourself with those attitudes.

Advertisements

~ by thelettuceman on August 16, 2016.

6 Responses to “Baggage and Reactionary Definitions”

  1. Reblogged this on Gangleri's Grove and commented:
    Really good and thoughtful addition to the discussion on miasma.

  2. Reblogged this on A Forest Door and commented:
    Every bit of this post is brilliant and every single polytheist should read it right now. As someone who was fortunate enough not to have any personal baggage associated with monotheistic religions (and thus more easily able to notice and let go of the cultural baggage we all absorb to some degree), I have spent decades now watching other pagans misunderstand and even distort polytheistic religions due to an inability to shake off their issues with, mostly, Christianity. It is doing a great disservice to the development of polytheistic theology and practice. We owe it to our gods and our traditions to be more mature, thoughtful and rational than this. Please read and consider what your own baggage might be and how it might be tainting your apprehension of what polytheism really is.

  3. Thank you for this. As a Roman Pagan, I get the reaction to piety of other Pagans who liken it to church ladies. I have long suspected that many Pagans and some of the more vocal bloggers are refugees from the Christian monoculture. They seem to react to anything that smacks of structure in religion or boundaries of any sort.

    The politics and religion comes to mind. I remember reading one vocal blogger who maintained that to be Pagan is to be political, since it is a part of Paganism. You can’t separate the two. What I have seen in that regard is an orthodoxy of leftism and no tolerance of any other stance.

    I have felt that this stance of paganism and politics to be impious since it says to me that non-political Gods have to defined as political.

    Knowing that you have baggage and knowing what it is goes a long way in having discussion on religious matters. I know I react badly to what I call emotional blackmail – i.e. you should have politics in your religion or you are an enemy of paganism, you should accept atheists in polytheism or you are a bad person. I have to guard my reaction that I don’t go nuclear on whomever is saying this. That goes a long way in parsing out what is being said.

    Have your read where John Michael Greer believes that Neo-Paganism is a dying movement since (I think) it has a squishy core and no structure.?

    • Thank you for reading!

      I haven’t read anything new by JMG, although I’m particularly bad at following up on authors and blogs. If he had written about it in the one book of his I own, I have undoubtedly forgotten that point. But it’s interesting that he feels that way.

      I just..can’t get into the politicizing of the Gods. I don’t even want to get into that argument, haha.

  4. Yes…

    One of the other big ones that “pagans don’t have” because Christians do that has been a pet peeve of mine for many years is: theology. You know, a word that is of Greek roots, and that was invented by polytheistic Greek philosophers, and then was appropriated (like so many other terms) by Christians…which, apparently, “pagans don’t have” (which, if phrased more honestly by those advocating such a viewpoint, would be stated “pagans SHOULDN’T have”). Because the benefit of not having theology is that one can’t talk about–shudder, shudder, horror, horror–beliefs or ideas, because that would–cringe, whine, whimper, cry–involve excluding some people or things in certain situations. Ugh…

    [There’s also personal baggage of the sort that goes “Well, you used this word, and someone else used that recently and meant this, so that’s what I thought you were saying.” Uhh…no, not necessarily, but that doesn’t of necessity derive from what you’re talking about here, even though I think it often has crossovers with it. But anyway…!?!]

    • Yes! Thank you for bringing that up, it’s just too many to list and I have had a lot of stuff on my plate. I appreciate it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: