Stop whining and get on with it

Cat at Quaker Pagan Reflections has posted an absolutely brilliant rant (well, she says it's a rant, but it's actually very mild-mannered) asking Pagans who have left Christianity behind to stop moaning about it and start exploring their own spirituality, i.e. instead of talking about why they don't like Jesus, they should start talking about why they do like Odin, or Freyja, or Isis, or the Tao. If more than 50% of your blogposts involve moaning about Christianity or Jesus, then please read it.

I couldn't agree more. I shudder at the number of times I have had to sit through interminable rants about how dreadful Christianity is at pub moots, and the number of blogposts I have had to sift through that were whining about how all the ills of the world can be laid at Christianity's door, and how they stole the Pagan festivals, yada, yada, yada.

Yes, Christians can be bigoted bastards. And yes, the Inquisition was bad. But on the plus side of the balance sheet, there's charity and compassion (not uniquely the preserve of Christians, but they do walk their talk in that respect).

It could be because many Pagans have come from a fundamentalist Christian background. I sympathise, because I have been there. But moaning about it incessantly is not the answer. Go and get some really good therapy, deal with it, and move on.

But it's not just Christianity and Jesus that get the blame for all the ills of the world. Oh no - in fact it's monotheism that is the bad guy, according to some. Last year, during Pagan Values Month, there were a number of posts going on about how polytheism was inherently more tolerant than monotheism. I disagree - I have met tolerant monotheists and intolerant polytheists. It's taking things literally that is the source of narrow-mindedness, and fear is the source of bigotry.

Trinitarian theology is mostly exclusivist, because it maintains that Jesus is the only gateway to the Divine Source; but all other forms of monotheism are conducive to the view that polytheism and monotheism are different perspectives on the same reality. But even some Trinitarians see their theology as a metaphor for other theologies.

So, unless you have made some effort to study other religions' theologies in some depth, don't assume that the narrow-minded fundamentalist mindset you were brought up in is typical of the whole of Christian thought. Some of the best minds in Europe were devoted to theological musing for centuries, so it's actually quite subtle.

Unless you are aware that there are several different models of the atonement, plus Christus Victor theology, plus the Arian heresy, and you know what theosis, kenosis, coinherence and perichoresis are, when original sin was invented and by whom, and what the causes and implications of the Filioque controversy were - then don't think you are qualified to hold forth on what's wrong with Christian theology.

Alternative history

You know those pivotal moments in history (the ones that Doctor Who isn't allowed to change)? Well just imagine that we lived in a universe where one of those crucial moments went differently. You can play this game with any pivotal moment you like (it's an amusing way to while away a winter's evening).

The crucial event I would like to imagine going differently is the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. Picture the scene... Diocletian's reign of terror has only recently ceased. Suddenly the early Christians are no longer united in being persecuted - now they can turn on each other and start weeding out the heretics. Add to the mix the Emperor Constantine, who turns up three days into the Council of Nicaea and is presented with a bundle of papers representing the theological deliberations of the bishops before his arrival, which he promptly chucks on the nearest brazier. One of the most important arguments that is had at the Council of Niceaea is the controversy over the Trinity and the Arian heresy. The Arian heresy is the belief that Jesus was the Son of God from the moment of his conception, not from the beginning of time as Trinitarian orthodoxy insists. It was revived after the Reformation by Faustus Socinus (founder of the Socinian Brethren, which eventually became the Unitarian church in Transylvania).

The importance of the Arian heresy is that it makes Jesus either semi-divine, or divine by adoption, or divine by birth (rather than divine since the beginning of time). If this is the theological position one adopts, it means that he ceases to be seen as the sole means of access to the "Father" (the Divine Source in Neoplatonic terminology), because if he is a son of God, rather than the Son of God, then there are other sons and daughters. And this quickly leads to Unitarianism - the belief that the Divine is One and can be accessed by reason and intuition, and does not require revelation to be known. That's not to suggest we can fully know the nature of the Divine, but we can see it reflected in the world around us, in other people, and the beauty of the universe. It also means that if we are all children of God, then we all have the potential to develop our inner "Christ" / Messiah / Buddha / Enlightened One.

So, let's imagine that the Arian heresy had won out at the Council of Nicaea. Perhaps the word heresy would still have its original meaning of a school of thought, or a choice (from the Greek haeresis).

There would have been no need to convert most of Europe by force - because, as Jesus said in John ch. 14, other peoples have their own religions (including Paganism) by which the Divine makes itself known.

The doctrine of penal substitution (the idea that Jesus' death was a substitute sacrifice for humanity's sins) might never have arisen (it was formalised in 1098 by Anselm).

The story of Jesus' resurrection might have been seen as a triumph over death, or perhaps eventually as an allegory of psychological transformation.

Islam might not have developed as a distinct religion (it is possible that it evolved out of an Arian group - it certainly holds a similar view of Christ). There would have been no Crusades, because no need to wrest the control of Israel from the Muslims, because they would have been seen as fellow believers.

The Jews might not have been so viciously persecuted (Unitarian churches have long had good relations with Judaism).

The Reformation might have been very different: Calvin couldn't appropriate Anselm's penal substitution theology, because it hadn't been written. Nor would he be able to have Servetus burnt at the stake for his Arianism. Indeed, Servetus might have been a major mover and shaker in the Reformation.

Tolerance of other religions would have been much greater, which would have made the imperialist and colonialist activities of Europe very different. There would have have been no need for evangelical Christianity, because the "good news" that Jesus was killed so you didn't have to be fried for eternity would never have been invented.

I wonder if there really are multiple universes where different choices were made at pivotal historical moments? It would be so interesting to visit them.

If my alternative universe is too tame, try Sannion's vision of the Roman empire with zombies.

Fundamentalist Christianity: the belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that you accept him as your master, so that he can remove from your soul an evil force that is present in humanity because a woman made out of a rib was tricked into eating a magic apple by a talking snake.