A theophany

Christian theologians (especially Orthodox ones) love to point out that Pagans are worshipping the creation, whereas they are worshipping the creator.

It is one of the first rules of interfaith dialogue to listen carefully to what others say they believe, rather than telling them what they believe.

This creator and creation thing is a bit of an old chestnut and not really true (it may be so in terms of some Christian theological systems, but it doesn't translate into ours).

In other words, Mu. (A Japanase word meaning, "your question is irrelevant in my paradigm"; kind of like "meh".)

Most Pagans see the Divine as immanent in the Universe, not necessarily as identical with it (and yes, don't tend to pay much attention to the unknowable, or believe in the transcendent aspect) so the categories of creator and creature are a bit meaningless, really... in fact I personally find the idea of an external supernatural creator offensive, because to me the Universe was born, not made. It is a theophany: a manifestation of the Divine.

As Sam Webster wrote in his 2007 article, How Close the Gods? Transcendence, Immanence and Immediacy in Pagan Religion (given at Pantheacon 2007):

Immediacy is a more modern term for wrestling with this problem, although one can find the idea discussed in the deep past. It is a subtle idea but its implications are vast. Here we would say, "the Goddess made the Tree and is present AS the Tree (not just IN the Tree)." To touch the Tree is to touch the Goddess. She is immediately present. Nothing is between us and Her. The whole World IS Her, made BY Her and OF Her, and by implication, there is Nothing BUT Her.

In this way of looking at it, it is not that we are focussed on the creation instead of the creator / creatrix: the two are identical, and so making a distinction between them is meaningless.

De-baptism

The UK National Secular Society has produced a de-baptism certificate for atheists - however it's not really suitable for Pagans or other liberal religious traditions, as it denounces "superstition" (under which heading they would probably include Pagan beliefs).

I ________ having been subjected to the Rite of Christian Baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. In the name of human reason, I reject all its Creeds and all other such superstition in particular, the perfidious belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by Baptism of alleged ORIGINAL SIN, and the evil power of supposed demons. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.

The main reason for doing this, as far as I can see, is that the number of bishops in the House of Lords is based on the number of adherents to the Church of England, and that number is apparently based on the number of people baptised in a Church of England church.

So here's my suggested wording for Pagans and Unitarians:

I ________ having been subjected to the rite of Christian baptism in infancy (before reaching an age of consent), hereby publicly revoke any implications of that Rite and renounce the Church that carried it out. By all that I hold sacred, I reject all its Creeds, in particular, the erroneous belief that any baby needs to be cleansed by baptism of alleged original sin. I wish to be excluded henceforth from enhanced claims of church membership numbers based on past baptismal statistics used, for example, for the purpose of securing legislative privilege.

A new tradition

A new tradition has arisen in deepest, darkest Bedfordshire: The Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley. Who knew that you could mix Taize prayer with Beaker spirituality and tea-lights? They also have a festival of the nativity of Thomas Hardy, and one for Morrissey (which should both be adopted immediately by all Pagans).

They have a website and a blog. And articles of faith:

The Articles of the Beaker Faith

1. Anything that can be reasonably conjectured when it comes to the original Beaker Folk, and not disproved, can be assumed to be true and therefore a genuine Beaker tradition.
2. Anything we don’t understand about previous generations was probably concerned with fertility rituals. Any object we don’t understand had symbolic meaning. Even if it could just have been a ritual back-scratcher.
3. The more inclusive you are, the less you have to worry.
4. There’s no spiritual power in the universe greater than wishful thinking.
5. All contributions to the Community are strictly optional. But don’t think that means you can get away without paying them.
6. Don’t jump and down on Thin Places in steel toe-capped boots. They’re liable to break.
7. Tea lights are nice.
8. Don’t ask the Archdruid about what she puts in her pipe, or why she needs such regular deliveries of hydroponic supplies. Or why the snow never settles on the roof of the Great House.
9. If it feels good, it’s probably fine.
10. Hi-viz is good for your physical safety and your eternal soul. We don’t just wear it because the Archdruid bought a job-lot of personal protective equipment in her old job as a Health and Safety advisor.
11. Whenever referring to "Celtic" Christianity or the "Celtic" tradition, we will always put the word "Celtic" in inverted commas, to indicate that it is no such thing. We’re still considering putting the word "tradition" in inverted commas also.
12. Never attempt astral projection without a safety belt and hard hat.
13. Avoid ever trying to understand what Beaker People mean by "the divine". Once we start to try and understand "the divine" it might in return make some demands on us. Keep your tea lights alight and your theology vague.
14. All religions contain at least grains of truth. But some religions are more profitable than others.

Hat-tip to Notes from Underground

Fame!

Cat over at Quaker Pagan Reflections has written a very interesting post about fame.

Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that fame and wisdom are not the same thing, I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea that there are no Pagans who do not know the difference (famous or otherwise). It's rare for me to disagree with Cat, but on this occasion I have to say I do.

I've thought a lot about the whole fame thing. Part of my reason for writing books was that I wanted something to live on after death; but I've never wanted to be famous in a Big Name Pagan sort of way. Most of the Big Name Pagans that I really respect are the ones who do not expect everyone else to agree with them and fawn over them. I have a selection of people whom I have commissioned to give me a big kick up the backside if ever I turn into one of those people surrounded by fawning neophytes. Of course there are one or two of those sort of Big Name Pagans in the UK, but apart from their small gang of neophytes, they are widely regarded as Too Big For Their Boots. Another part of my reason for writing books was that I aimed to write the sort of books I wanted to read (on the assumption that there might be others interested in the same topics as me). The other day, someone did say to me that they were very grateful for my books as they thought they were the only one interested in such things - I was very glad to have been of assistance in this way, but I can't say it inflated my ego, though I was very pleased to discover a kindred spirit. I can certainly honestly say that I don't write books in order to acquire followers or be seen as super-spiritual; I write because I enjoy writing and hope that other people will enjoy the results. I've never wanted to be famous to the extent of being recognised in the street or anything like that; I certainly don't crave the attention of tabloids and paparazzi; and I would rather someone develop their own opinions than quote mine as an "authority" (if they happen to agree with me, that's nice, but only if they have come to their views after independent thought and reflection).

The authors I respect know what they think, cultivate wisdom, are generally humble, and do not expect the biggest table or spotlight at conferences. I happen to know quite a lot of Pagan authors, and for the most part they are people of integrity. Rather than keeping a coterie of dependent neophytes, they encourage others to develop their own opinions, walk their own path with integrity, and cultivate their own wisdom. A person who keeps others in a state of spiritual or intellectual dependence (beyond the point where they might be expected to think for themselves) is certainly to be suspected of overweening ego; but fortunately such people are reasonably rare. I personally couldn't be bothered to keep a flock of neophytes dangling at my tail, because it would be too much effort looking after their neediness, and people who can't think for themselves irritate me. If anyone says to me that I am wise or special, I just feel squirmily embarrassed, quite frankly. I mean, okay, I take a fair amount of pride in my breadth of knowledge and ability to express it clearly; but I don't pretend to superior wisdom on anything.

The Hávamál implicitly make the point that fame must be earned:

Happy is he who wins for himself
fair fame and kindly words;
(Hávamál, 8)

Cattle die and kinsmen die,
thyself too soon must die,
but one thing never, I ween, will die, --
fair fame of one who has earned.
(Hávamál, 75)

Fame is not merely earned by spouting opinions; it is earned by wisdom and a life well lived.

A person with integrity walks the walk, and does not merely talk the talk.

I have discussed Pagan virtues and ethics elsewhere at length (especially compassion), and they most definitely do include humility - but a humility tempered by honour, which in the Pagan sense is an accurate assessment of one's own self-worth (naturally not flinching from being aware of one's flaws). Honour and humility together bring integrity. And Pagan virtues (ideal and actual) certainly include the cultivation of wisdom - a wisdom that includes compassion for all life (including those less "spiritually advanced" than oneself).

Reviews

A series of amusing Bible reviews (reproduced here in case Amazon remove them or something):

Lots of plot holes, but mildly interesting bit of semi-historical fiction, May 1, 2009
By Joshua N. Petersen

This book stars a weird sociopathic anti-social bipolar hermaphroditic superbeing with an intense hatred of foreskins. (He's loving one minute, killing everyone the next, loving again, then killing again, never shows his face, creates stuff apparantly for the express purpose of destroying it, and beats up constantly on his 'chosen' people... whom it never says what he chose them for, and has all these 'songs' in them where they admire his bosoms -aka breasts-) I mean, that's definitely an original character, but feels like it'd make a better villian or foil than the main character.

Also, feels like the authors needed to collaborate more. I mean, the "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke", and "John" sections repeated the same story over again, but re-ordered the same parts. In one, a group of events may take a week, and in another, it make take over a month. On top of it all, breaking everything into miniature sized 'chapters' (more like pages) and then sub-dividing further into verses, really breaks up the reading and makes it hard to get through an entire short story (called 'books) in one sitting.

Setting the book in past historical settings was interesting, but at some places the authors obviously didn't do their research. One example being that crazy Jonah story (what's with the giant fish, giant vine, and giant worm?). The mentioned king didn't rule over Ninevah, they're separated by hundreds of years!

I did like the hippy-character though. Jesus was alright, at least until the book of Revelation kind of ruined it and that Paul guy began teaching against everything Jesus taught while pretending to be on the same side.

Although the line in Titus 1:12 (supposedly made by someone writing to convey knowledge of an infallible God) "It was one of them, their very own prophet who said, `Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons.'" Okay... logical problem here. "Cretans are always liars" and a CRETAN prophet says, "Cretans are always liers" Now would could assume the Cretan was lying about ALWAYS lying, but the author follows, saying, "This testimony is true". It's a logical impossibility! The only solution is that the author himself is lying, and if you can't trust the narrator in a book, who can you trust?

For reasons of weird under-developed main characters, logical fallacies and impossibilities, historical inaccuracies in historical fiction, inconsistent and repeating timelines, and creepy forskin obsessions, I need to give this 1 star.

Although I still stand by that I like the hippy, too bad so many of the 'followers' screw up his teachings. I mean, he says the most important thing is to love people, and then his followers say the most important thing is to worship him... kinda loopy.

However, psychiatrists will probably have a hayday analyzing this thing!

Don't Leave It Lying Around the House, October 23, 2008
By Carl Wong (Van Nuys, CA USA)

This book should never be left where it could fall into the hands of children. Recurrent themes of bloody violence, murder, racism, incest and rape are dealt with extremely irresponsibly. Horrific events are presented as justified by circumstances and as solutions to petty wrongs.

Worse than the depictions in the book are actual historic examples of such depictions being used to justify the worst kind of degradation and humiliation that humans have ever been forced to endure. These acts are not just inspired by this book, but characters in the book urge its readers to follow its example. Worst of all, however, is that, despite this book's obvious lack of coherent logic or sense, it inexplicably possesses a following of people that somehow find comfort in its horror.

No doubt about it, the horrific images, and lack of intelligent discussion of those images, contained in this book makes it entirely unsuitable for children, or sensible adults.

It is very doubtful that a book that meanders so terribly, and contradicts itself so often, is truly inspired by a deity. What you will read in here can be found in other mythologies. There is nothing truly unique about it.

Upon close scrutiny, we discover that the content of Bible is a compilation of historically and archaeologically unsupportable Myths such as Noah's ark, Abraham, Joseph, David, Solomon, etc.

Had Promise, But Squandered It, February 11, 2009
By Mark Twain

The Lucifer character seemed like a nice enough guy. Refused to bow down to unjust authority, etc. Was pretty much a George Washington / King Leonidas type. For some reason they chose to focus on the Yahweh character however. He was a pretty big jerk, always commanding people to be killed and raped and whatever. Didn't really understand the part where the guy offered his daughters up to be raped. Come to think of it, way to much rape in this book. Anyways, it was cool when the bear ate the children for making fun of that guy, but the scene was not nearly long enough. Also, didn't quite understand how the author got away with so much plagiarism from Egyptian and Sumerian books, but whatevs. Liked the part where he said not to eat seafood. Its nice to see he also had a bad Red Lobster experience. Would recommend the author try Joe's Crab Shack. It's divine.

(spotted by Christina)

404 explanations

Why your page wouldn't load according to various religions and denominations (read carefully as it initially looks like a normal 404 page). I especially liked this one:

Unitarian explanation: All links are equal, so if this link doesn't work for you, feel free to experiment with other links that might bring you joy and fulfillment.

To which could be added various Pagan explanations:

• Fluffy bunny: the fairies ate it
• Animist: You must be at one with the link before it will reveal itself
• Heathen: Sorry, we offered it to the wights as a libation
• Wiccan: Sorry you can't see it because it's a third-degree secret
  

Pagan weddings

While we're on the subject of marriage, I would like to see Pagan weddings given legal recognition in England and Wales, and in the USA.

Pagan handfastings already have legal recognition in Scotland.

In 2007, a woman named Cassandra M set up a petition on the Prime Minister's petitions website to make handfasting legal (now closed). The response was that they had reviewed the Marriage Act previously but were unable to come up with anything sensible so it was dropped. Furthermore, they said,

Traditional Pagan ceremonies are held in the open air. All outdoor ceremonies in the UK need an additional legal ceremony for the marriage to be recognised by law.

Well, Pagan ceremonies don't have to be held in the open air - even if we don't own many buildings, we can always hire them. Perhaps we need to re-open this issue with a slightly different wording of the petition.

I wonder if Hindu, Muslim and Sikh weddings are legally recognised under the current provisions for "Marriage solemnized in a registered building without the presence of a registrar, by the authorised person in whose presence the marriage is solemnized" which seems somewhat ambiguous - can Hindu, Muslim and Sikh celebrants be an "authorised person"? Why couldn't a Pagan become an "authorised person"?

Also, both Pagans and Unitarians would like the right to perform same-sex weddings.

Support gay marriage

A clear and concise video explaining why opposition to gay marriage limits the rights of religious minorities who want to perform gay marriages:



Via the Wild Hunt.

Dune kitteh sez...

The spice must flow:

What would a Pagan "clergy" look like?

Earlier I reflected on Gus di Zerega's arguments against having Pagan clergy.

A friend commented that if we're going to have clergy, maybe we should look to similar religions to Paganism(s) for role models.

Good point - but what religions are similar to Paganism? The nearest (as far as I can see) are Unitarian Universalism and Quakers (the Religious Society of Friends). Also, I would argue, liberal Judaism.

Well, out of those three, Quakers don't have clergy. The other two, however, do something very significant: the congregation selects the minister / rabbi. If you look at traditions where that doesn't happen, it's a recipe for trouble. Somebody gets a nice "bells and smells" thing going, and then the evangelical wing gets wind of it and sends in a bully-boy to stop it all turning too Catholic. OK, so people can vote with their feet, but what if that was the only high church game in town? Whereas, if the congregation selects the minister, they get to choose someone with a similar theological outlook and value system. In Wicca, the founder of the coven usually gets to be High Priest/ess; but there's usually more than one coven in town, so if you don't like the values of Coven A, there's usually Coven B and C just down the road; so you can vote with your feet (or found your own coven if you have enough experience); but that relies on the various covens having different values for seekers to choose from. In Heathenry and Druidry, which tends to have larger groups, there is usually only one group in a particular place.

So, we all need to be more up-front with seekers about what our values are. I think this is why there are so many solitary practitioners; I hear so many people say that they didn't like the ethos of the groups they tried. Sure, your coven/grove/hearth is LGBT-friendly - but do you mention same-sex love in your rituals? Sure, your group is consensual - but do you have a consensually-agreed-on set of guidelines that the whole group has worked out, which you can refer to when one ego tries to dominate? Sure, you're not authoritarian - but do you make people copy out the Book of Shadows?

Gus also worried about using the word "clergy" for our spiritual leaders. I agree that this word is probably not quite the one we want, as it doesn't encompass or imply witch, priestess, shaman, etc. How about gytha and gothi for Heathens, druid for Druids (I dislike the word druidess), priest and priestess for Wiccans - oh wait, we're already using those. I suppose we need a collective term for all of these that can be readily understood by the rest of the world.

The power of the "clergy" should be balanced by having a strong and well-informed committee or other body to which they are accountable (this mostly works fine for synagogues and UU churches).

In a Pagan setting, there should not be sermons; only talks and discussions. A Pagan ritual shows the way; it doesn't tell you the way, but leaves you to work it out for yourself. Similarly, a UU minister does not give a sermon; she or he gives an address, which the congregation are free to ignore, shred or take on board as they see fit. Some churches have a discussion instead of or after the address. In our coven, we use a talking stick for discussions; this works well to ensure everyone gets space and time to be heard.

The relationship of Pagan leaders to Pagan groups should be one of service offered to the community (not imposing orthodoxy); and rather than carping and complaining, people should be ready to take on leadership roles. Of course the passing-on of the mantle can only occur if the existing leadership empowers and encourages their successors; so all our interactions and training should be about empowering others and not keeping them as mere neophytes. (I've always said that I'd rather empower people because it's less effort than not doing so, quite apart from the ethical considerations).

Another good plan is to have an annual general meeting of your hearth/grove/coven where any issues can be brought out into the open. This can be opened and closed with some simple ritual act, such as grounding and centering, and is probably best facilitated using a talking stick; but I have found this very helpful in the past.

Stations

A series of posts reflecting on the Stations of the Cross and their contemporary meaning for the LGBT community, by a gay Christian blogger.

Early Christians did something very radical: They turned a symbol of torture and state power into a symbol of personal and social liberation.

This has happened many times in the LGBT community: Matthew Shepard's brutal murder launched a nationwide discussion regarding hate crimes; the AIDS crisis in the 1980's gave our community a powerful voice for change and liberation...

• Station Eight: Jesus Meets the Women of Jerusalem
• Station Seven: Jesus Falls a Second Time
• Station Six: Veronica Wipes Jesus' Face
• Station Five: Simon Helps Jesus Carry His Cross
• Station Four: Jesus Sees His Mother
• Station Three: Jesus Falls For the First Time
• Station Two: Jesus Takes Up His Cross
• Station One: Jesus is Brought Before Pilate

Iowa and Vermont

Hooray!  Iowa has legalised same-sex marriage.  This is significant because it's not on the more liberal coast but inland.  Iowa joins Massachusetts and Connecticut in granting marriage equality to same-sex couples.

The state of Vermont is on the way there, but sadly the bill is being opposed by the state governor.

Hopefully this will now give the same-sex marriage campaigners a boost in California, where Proposition 8 is already being challenged as illegal.

Homophobia - just say NO.

"Saying 'NO!' to homophobia is one of the healthiest steps any one of us can take, yet when our whole self-definition is based on negation, we miss something vital. We know who we're not, but we still don't have answers to the same basic questions, 'Who are we?' 'What does it mean to love as we do?'" -- John R Stowe

And in case you weren't heard the first time, say it again.

We can campaign for fairer laws – 86 member states of the United Nations still criminalise consensual same sex among adults. Among these, 7 have the death penalty for homosexuality. In addition, there are 6 provinces or territorial units which also imprison people for homosexuality. Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people still do not receive completely equal treatment under British law.

We can challenge homophobic attitudes whenever we hear them. We can support campaigns like Stonewall (the gay rights lobby group) and IDAHO. IDAHO is the International Day against Homophobia and Transphobia. May 17th was chosen because it marks the anniversary of the day in 1990 when the World Health Organisation removed homosexuality from its list of mental diseases.

And then say YES to positive LGBTQ identity:

• Spirit Matters IV:Ten Queer Spiritual Roles by Tom Moon
  
• The Homosexual Agenda and The Protocols of the Elders of Sodom by Hal Duncan