Creation Spirituality or creation-centered spirituality (NOT to be confused with Creationism!) is an ancient theological approach as well as a contemporary religious movement based on a panentheistic cosmology and characterized by a deep reverence for natural life.
The "god" of Creation Spirituality is far beyond the personifying idolatry of mainstream and fundamentalist Christianity and bears much more resemblance to the ineffable Godhead of the ancient mystics as well as to the all-pervading, all-encompassing notion of divinity found among indigenous societies.
Creation Spirituality in its contemporary form has primarily been developed and promoted by the Californian priest and theologian Matthew Fox, though he insists that it is not originally his invention but in fact "the oldest spiritual tradition within the Bible as well as the way of indigenous people".
One of the key concepts of Creation Spirituality is the idea of 'Original Blessing', i.e. the experience of creation as something intrinsically good which is worthy of celebration and reverence. This experience of original blessing is the starting point of creation-centered spirituality as opposed to the fall/redemption tradition of Western theology which begins with the non-biblical and anthropocentric doctrine of original sin which was introduced by the neoplatonist Saint Augustine.
In the course of my studies hitherto I could also identify strong elements of Process Theology, namely the idea that creation is not a past event but an on-going process of manifestation. In Creation Spirituality this is usually expressed and communicated through the image of the goddess mother constantly giving birth to the universe.
Although Creation Spirituality was developed by Rev. Dr. Fox in a primarily Judeo-Christian mythological framework it is not explicitely or entirely Christian but considers itself deep-ecumenical and post-denominational. In fact, I found it highly compatible with my own pagan framework and I have to admit that I personally regard it as one of the best-developed theological approaches towards nature-based spirituality which is available to Western society today.
I guess it doesn't surprise anyone to hear that Fr Fox was silenced and subsequently kicked out of the Dominican order on the Vatican's initiative during the early 90s. By the way, one of the driving forces behind the removal of this 'dangerous and deviant' heretic was a certain Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Yes, my fellow Germans, we're talking about the same Bavarian mafioso, gay basher, misogynist and theological bully who in the meantime has placed his not-quite-so-holy butt on the Throne of Peter!
It is interesting (though again not exactly surprising) to note that within the Catholic church mindless obedience to dogma and official doctrine still seems to take priority over attempts to reform the predominant Western religious tradition into a healthy, justice and compassion-based spiritual path with the power to transform our sick society for the better.
As my studies of Creation Spirituality go on I hope I will be able to keep you updated on this topic and provide you with deeper insights into this vibrant contemporary religious movement.
Thursday 24 January 2008
Thursday 17 January 2008
A new definition of paganism or Why I am pagan
Originally I posted this essay about half a year ago. A lot of things have happened to me in the meantime, I had to take many steps which would have been unthinkable for me only six months ago. One of the more important of those steps was the fact that I finally distanced myself from the neo-pagan movement with which I always had a kind of ambivalent relationship. Why I still call myself a pagan - not in the neo-pagan sense but in the spirit of spiritual anarchism - I would like to outline below.
Right from the beginning of my spiritual journey I have always tended to refer to myself as “pagan” when asked about my religion. I did so regardless of what exactly my religious views had been at a given time, simply because I did not identify with the Christian mainstream and liked the rebellious overtones of using this word as a self-reference. Nor did I know at that time that there was an actual religious movement in the west whose members made use of the term “pagan” as a self-reference and proudly called “paganism” their own religion of choice.
As soon as I heard about this neo-pagan movement with its numerous streams and undercurrents such as Wicca, Reconstructionism, Druidism etc. I to set out on a journey to explore the beliefs and practices involved in modern “paganism” in order to decide for myself if what those self-proclaimed “pagans” did and believed had anything in common with what I personally meant when I called myself a practicioner of “paganism”.
This journey has lasted more than three years now and has taken me to many a strange place. It has led me to study books on witchcraft, Asatru and nature worship, to attend pagan moots and gatherings, to meet Wiccans, followers of the Goddess and people who still pray to Odin or sacrifice to the gods of ancient Greece. It even made me briefly join an eclectic pagan group myself which was composed of individuals with the mutual aim to gather first-hand experience and share whatever knowledge of paganism they already had.
However, up to this day my journey has not led me to a point at which I could wholeheartedly identify with the contemporary neo-pagan movement - neither with one of its particular streams and traditions nor with the movement as a whole. In fact, it has left me quite doubtful as to whether I will ever be able to call myself a pagan in the strict sense of “member of the actual neo-pagan religion” (and especially doubtful as to whether I even want to do so).
Since I do not feel inclined in the slightest to withdraw from my use of the term “pagan” only because a bunch of neo-pagan guys - with whom I do not fully identify - believe they had a monopoly on this label (and its definition for the rest of the world) I just decided to take a look at the origins of the word “pagan” in order to make clear where it comes from and why I take the liberty to use it as a religious self-reference.
Historically, the term „pagan“, (which is derived from lt. „paganus“ – „country-dweller“), has had a wide array of meanings and was first used by members of the Roman military for non-soldiers, in pretty much the same way we are using the term „civilian“ nowadays.
Other more distinctly religious meanings of this term span from its application by city-dwelling christianized Romans to refer to their polytheistic rural cousins, to its widespread use by medieval Christians to describe monotheistic muslims, monistic neo-platonists, the followers of classical Graeco-Roman religion etc. In fact, it can be seen very clearly that „pagan“ (as well as the related germanic term „heathen“) could mean pretty much everything which was not explicitly Christian or Jewish - including the orthodox, scriptural, monotheistic, abrahamic religion of Islam.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the narrow use of the term „pagan“ in the modern neo-pagan sense – i.e. denoting some sort of non-Christian nature worship with polytheistic/pantheistic/animistic undertones - would mirror its actual historical meaning. To the contrary, it is indeed realistic to assume that this very specific definition of „paganism“ did not exist prior to 18th century romanticism with its obsession for natural landscapes and classical mythology.
Since I am neither an 18th century romanticist nor a member of any particular stream of modern neopaganism - but simply a regular 21st century European guy with a strong interest in alternative spirituality who calls himself a pagan for very personal reasons - I do not feel bound by this narrowed-down definition of “paganism” in any way.
When I have a closer look at the diversity of meanings and connotations the term „pagan“ could have historically I can indeed identify only one semantically correct definition of this term which covers the whole array of its possible applications: namely that of an „outsider“, one who is not a member of the prevailing religious and cultural mainstream which characterizes society at a given time. In other words, the „pagans“ have always been „the others“, in a sense of „those who do not belong to us“, completely regardless of what exactly those individuals believed or what their customs and traditions were composed of.
It is not possible to define the term „pagan“ in any more detail, at least not on historical or linguistic grounds!
Thus, consequently, using the word “pagan” in order to refer to your own religious attitude cannot be anything else but a self-ironic acknowledgement of the fact that one does not share the views of the prevailing religious mainstream - similar to the way a practicing Christian with deviating view points might jokingly refer to himself as a “heretic”. If those “non-mainstream” views comprise actual polytheism, Wicca, or simply some sort of modern new-age belief is completely irrelevant in this context.
And this now is exactly the way in which I am using the term “pagan” when I call myself one: it is an acknowledgement of my own religious non-conformism, of my refusal to be part of the predominant cultural and religious mainstream which characterizes Western society today (and which is quite evenly split into “organized Christianity” and “secular Agnosticism”). It is not a term which is necessarily related to nature worship, polytheism, pantheism or any specific religious movement, it is a term that, if used as a self-reference, should denote a general attitude towards religion rather than a particular theological agenda.
I do not need any contemporary neopagan individual or organization to define the term “paganism” for me, let alone to decide who may correctly call himself/herself a pagan and who not. In fact, after studying the modern pagan movement for several years I have more than enough reasons to be skeptical about this particular stream of contemporary spirituality.
Right from the beginning of my spiritual journey I have always tended to refer to myself as “pagan” when asked about my religion. I did so regardless of what exactly my religious views had been at a given time, simply because I did not identify with the Christian mainstream and liked the rebellious overtones of using this word as a self-reference. Nor did I know at that time that there was an actual religious movement in the west whose members made use of the term “pagan” as a self-reference and proudly called “paganism” their own religion of choice.
As soon as I heard about this neo-pagan movement with its numerous streams and undercurrents such as Wicca, Reconstructionism, Druidism etc. I to set out on a journey to explore the beliefs and practices involved in modern “paganism” in order to decide for myself if what those self-proclaimed “pagans” did and believed had anything in common with what I personally meant when I called myself a practicioner of “paganism”.
This journey has lasted more than three years now and has taken me to many a strange place. It has led me to study books on witchcraft, Asatru and nature worship, to attend pagan moots and gatherings, to meet Wiccans, followers of the Goddess and people who still pray to Odin or sacrifice to the gods of ancient Greece. It even made me briefly join an eclectic pagan group myself which was composed of individuals with the mutual aim to gather first-hand experience and share whatever knowledge of paganism they already had.
However, up to this day my journey has not led me to a point at which I could wholeheartedly identify with the contemporary neo-pagan movement - neither with one of its particular streams and traditions nor with the movement as a whole. In fact, it has left me quite doubtful as to whether I will ever be able to call myself a pagan in the strict sense of “member of the actual neo-pagan religion” (and especially doubtful as to whether I even want to do so).
Since I do not feel inclined in the slightest to withdraw from my use of the term “pagan” only because a bunch of neo-pagan guys - with whom I do not fully identify - believe they had a monopoly on this label (and its definition for the rest of the world) I just decided to take a look at the origins of the word “pagan” in order to make clear where it comes from and why I take the liberty to use it as a religious self-reference.
Historically, the term „pagan“, (which is derived from lt. „paganus“ – „country-dweller“), has had a wide array of meanings and was first used by members of the Roman military for non-soldiers, in pretty much the same way we are using the term „civilian“ nowadays.
Other more distinctly religious meanings of this term span from its application by city-dwelling christianized Romans to refer to their polytheistic rural cousins, to its widespread use by medieval Christians to describe monotheistic muslims, monistic neo-platonists, the followers of classical Graeco-Roman religion etc. In fact, it can be seen very clearly that „pagan“ (as well as the related germanic term „heathen“) could mean pretty much everything which was not explicitly Christian or Jewish - including the orthodox, scriptural, monotheistic, abrahamic religion of Islam.
There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to believe that the narrow use of the term „pagan“ in the modern neo-pagan sense – i.e. denoting some sort of non-Christian nature worship with polytheistic/pantheistic/animistic undertones - would mirror its actual historical meaning. To the contrary, it is indeed realistic to assume that this very specific definition of „paganism“ did not exist prior to 18th century romanticism with its obsession for natural landscapes and classical mythology.
Since I am neither an 18th century romanticist nor a member of any particular stream of modern neopaganism - but simply a regular 21st century European guy with a strong interest in alternative spirituality who calls himself a pagan for very personal reasons - I do not feel bound by this narrowed-down definition of “paganism” in any way.
When I have a closer look at the diversity of meanings and connotations the term „pagan“ could have historically I can indeed identify only one semantically correct definition of this term which covers the whole array of its possible applications: namely that of an „outsider“, one who is not a member of the prevailing religious and cultural mainstream which characterizes society at a given time. In other words, the „pagans“ have always been „the others“, in a sense of „those who do not belong to us“, completely regardless of what exactly those individuals believed or what their customs and traditions were composed of.
It is not possible to define the term „pagan“ in any more detail, at least not on historical or linguistic grounds!
Thus, consequently, using the word “pagan” in order to refer to your own religious attitude cannot be anything else but a self-ironic acknowledgement of the fact that one does not share the views of the prevailing religious mainstream - similar to the way a practicing Christian with deviating view points might jokingly refer to himself as a “heretic”. If those “non-mainstream” views comprise actual polytheism, Wicca, or simply some sort of modern new-age belief is completely irrelevant in this context.
And this now is exactly the way in which I am using the term “pagan” when I call myself one: it is an acknowledgement of my own religious non-conformism, of my refusal to be part of the predominant cultural and religious mainstream which characterizes Western society today (and which is quite evenly split into “organized Christianity” and “secular Agnosticism”). It is not a term which is necessarily related to nature worship, polytheism, pantheism or any specific religious movement, it is a term that, if used as a self-reference, should denote a general attitude towards religion rather than a particular theological agenda.
I do not need any contemporary neopagan individual or organization to define the term “paganism” for me, let alone to decide who may correctly call himself/herself a pagan and who not. In fact, after studying the modern pagan movement for several years I have more than enough reasons to be skeptical about this particular stream of contemporary spirituality.
Tuesday 15 January 2008
What is Spiritual Anarchism?
If you look up the term 'Spiritual Anarchism' on a search engine you will inevitably come across a large variety of definitions. As 'Spiritual Anarchism' is neither a trademark nor a term related to any specific doctrine or faith tradition - for obvious reasons - it is just natural that an increasing number of people use the expression in various different ways and contexts. As this is MY blog you will only find MY interpretation here, completely unrelated to how other people might use the same term. Pretty straight-forward, huh?
So what is Spiritual Anarchism?
The political philosophy of Anarchism primarily denotes rejection of state and compulsory government. It denies the validity of enforced man-made laws and is characterized by a general distrust of external authority. Sometimes these views go along with attempts - violent as well as non-violent in nature - to achieve liberation from such authoritarian structures.
I would like to point out right from the beginning that I am NOT an anarchist in the revolutionary political sense. It should be obvious to anyone who has eyes to see, ears to listen and the mental faculties to draw logical conclusions that humanity in its current state of development is not even close to the level of maturity required for such a radical social transformation. In a world full of violent self-assertion, me-first-ism and opportunists who are only too willing to build their luck on the backs of their fellow human beings the abandoning of governmental rule can hardly be considered a valid option or healthy alternative to existing models of social organization.
However, when it comes to the religious realm I firmly and profoundly believe that a shift away from classical doctrine towards a more individualistic spirituality is not only possible and desirable but indeed urgently required. The apparent antipodes of religious fundamentalism and atheism, increasing secularization on one hand and flight into fanaticism and superstitious literalism on the other hand, are from my perspective just two sides of the same thing, which is degenerate religion, spirituality oblivious of its own roots in the ecstatic experience of mystery.
This primordial gnosis, this innate sense of the numinous and of the great mystery behind the manifest world is what I regard as the true origin of all religion and as the only sound fundament for an authentic spirituality. This is not to deny the validity of tradition since a healthy tradition is what provides us with the framework in which to safely unfold our true natures. This is not to deny the importance of community since all energy raised by the individual should ultimately be allowed to flow back into the greater whole.
However, one should always bear in mind that religion in the conventional sense is no more and no less but a collective expression of what once had been a mystical sense of the numinous shared by a community of individuals. Organized religion might be helpful to the individual if it clearly sees itself as what it actually is but it has beyond any doubt proven itself to be destructive the more it tends to forget its own mystical origins.
Thus, by Spiritual Anarchism I simply mean the attempt to transfer a philosophy of liberation and individualism into the religious realm, a realm in which it could not only reveal its full power and potential much better than on the contemporary political stage but also, in the long run, generate a momentum of its own which would certainly have a strong and positive knock-on effect on all other areas of human society.
It is our inborn sense of the great mystery behind the world, our capability to fully realize the wonder which is the cosmos and to reflect on our part in it which makes us human and sets us aside from other animal species. Why compromise it? Why replace it for dogma and hierarchy? Let us go back to the true source of our spiritual power. Let us reclaim our primordial sense of mystery and give it a fully authentic, a fully individual expression.
This is what I mean by Spiritual Anarchism.
So what is Spiritual Anarchism?
The political philosophy of Anarchism primarily denotes rejection of state and compulsory government. It denies the validity of enforced man-made laws and is characterized by a general distrust of external authority. Sometimes these views go along with attempts - violent as well as non-violent in nature - to achieve liberation from such authoritarian structures.
I would like to point out right from the beginning that I am NOT an anarchist in the revolutionary political sense. It should be obvious to anyone who has eyes to see, ears to listen and the mental faculties to draw logical conclusions that humanity in its current state of development is not even close to the level of maturity required for such a radical social transformation. In a world full of violent self-assertion, me-first-ism and opportunists who are only too willing to build their luck on the backs of their fellow human beings the abandoning of governmental rule can hardly be considered a valid option or healthy alternative to existing models of social organization.
However, when it comes to the religious realm I firmly and profoundly believe that a shift away from classical doctrine towards a more individualistic spirituality is not only possible and desirable but indeed urgently required. The apparent antipodes of religious fundamentalism and atheism, increasing secularization on one hand and flight into fanaticism and superstitious literalism on the other hand, are from my perspective just two sides of the same thing, which is degenerate religion, spirituality oblivious of its own roots in the ecstatic experience of mystery.
This primordial gnosis, this innate sense of the numinous and of the great mystery behind the manifest world is what I regard as the true origin of all religion and as the only sound fundament for an authentic spirituality. This is not to deny the validity of tradition since a healthy tradition is what provides us with the framework in which to safely unfold our true natures. This is not to deny the importance of community since all energy raised by the individual should ultimately be allowed to flow back into the greater whole.
However, one should always bear in mind that religion in the conventional sense is no more and no less but a collective expression of what once had been a mystical sense of the numinous shared by a community of individuals. Organized religion might be helpful to the individual if it clearly sees itself as what it actually is but it has beyond any doubt proven itself to be destructive the more it tends to forget its own mystical origins.
Thus, by Spiritual Anarchism I simply mean the attempt to transfer a philosophy of liberation and individualism into the religious realm, a realm in which it could not only reveal its full power and potential much better than on the contemporary political stage but also, in the long run, generate a momentum of its own which would certainly have a strong and positive knock-on effect on all other areas of human society.
It is our inborn sense of the great mystery behind the world, our capability to fully realize the wonder which is the cosmos and to reflect on our part in it which makes us human and sets us aside from other animal species. Why compromise it? Why replace it for dogma and hierarchy? Let us go back to the true source of our spiritual power. Let us reclaim our primordial sense of mystery and give it a fully authentic, a fully individual expression.
This is what I mean by Spiritual Anarchism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
