Myth and History in Modern Paganism

Some comments on the tendency of many neo-Pagans to bend history in order to make it accommodate their modern myths:

I believe it is safe to say that from a pagan perspective – or better from a generally premodern point of view – mythological reality is by no means less real than historical reality. For exactly this reason does a truly Pagan spirituality – that is one which among other things re-awakens mythos in order to profoundly challenge modernist ways of thinking and organizing knowledge - not primarily depend on historical figures, historical founders, historical prophets and so on.

However, this should not lead one to believe that our Pagan ancestors did not distinguish between the one and the other side of reality. Even though on occasion mythos might have been drawn upon to justify claims to political power it is quite unrealistic and arrogant to assume that ancient Pagans did not know of the distinction between mythological and historical reality. There is enough evidence by anthropologists to suggest that even those traditional cultures who up to this day live isolated and on the technological level of the palaeolithic do indeed draw a clear line, say for instance, between everyday-consciousness and the mythical shamanic realm of non-ordinary reality.

In fact, to confuse what Karen Armstrong calls the logical mode and the mythological mode of thinking - i.e. to rationalize mythological reality into historical reality – well, most ironically, this is quite a common trademark of post-Axial Age totalitarian religions such as the non-Jesuanian ecclesial occidental perversion of Christianity which has been haunting human beings of all creeds and denominations for more than a thousand years now.

Having clarified this, it seems logical enough that a modern mythological religion such as Wicca or Goddess spirituality ought not be despised or rejected on the grounds alone that it draws on rather ahistorical myths such as a universal Goddess which cannot be found in any actual historical pagan culture or a universal Horned God which resembles a specific Jungian archetype much more closely than it does resemble anything in the ancient world. For if mythological reality is distinct from historical reality „but not in any way less real“ how could a modern myth be inferior to an ancient one as long as it speaks to people today and has the power to transform their lives for the better.

However, it is not the use of such modern Jungian myths which casts a dubious light on Wicca or other types of modern Witchery. It is the refusal by so many a modern pagan to openly see and acknowledge the non-historicity of such myths which alone ridicules contemporary paganisms.

It is by failing to draw a clear line of distinction between mythos and logos – and in failing to do so falling into the Christian trap of rationalizing mythological into historical reality - that so many modern witches, Wiccans and Goddess worshippers profoundly betray the worldview of their Pagan ancestors. For what could be more Christian, or rather, what could be more in line with the modern occidental and pseudo-rationalist version of Christianity, than the questionable efforts by some second wave feminists and Wiccan would-be-academics to find a historical ground for what has so often been proved to be an inhabitant of the mythological realm of reality alone.

A Goddess spirituality acknowledging the fact that ancient European cultures were largely polytheistic - and thus certainly did not know a single universal female deity - a critical version of Wicca casting aside its ridiculous old ways of constructing false historical lineages, in short, a progressive Pagan spirituality honouring its powerful myths by acknowledging them as what they truly are, namely myths, now, that would be the sort of Paganism with the power to transform our pityful postmodern religious landscape.

However, a neo-Paganism which goes on with large-scale history falsification, a pseudo-Paganism betraying its own myths by trying to convert them into historical reality – all this in a desperate attempt to boost its own credibility - will not achieve anything apart from revealing its hysterical proponents as exactly that which they truly are:

Shockingly well-conditioned occidental little Christians who suck the last bit of power out of Paganism by undermining it with their shockingly well-internalized post-Axial Christian way of thinking.

Agnostic Polytheism and the nature of the gods

As of late I have been giving some thought to the split of contemporary paganism into so-called hard and soft polytheists, i.e. such pagans who understand their gods as personal distinct entities with separate personalities (hard polytheism) and those who regard their deities as transpersonal forms of energy, archetypes or aspects of a higher supreme deity (soft polytheism). The fronts of either party have been stagnating for many years now with the hard polies predominantly coming from the reconstructionist camp and accusing their counterparts of „historical distortion“ as well as of „new age esotericism“, whereas the soft polies tend to wholesale dismiss their theological antagonists as literalists and theologically illiterate dogmatists with an inferior understanding of esoteric symbolism.

As a pagan adherent to a primarily monistic world view who does not necessarily regard the aforementioned positions as entirely incompatible I would like to take a rather neutral stance on the topic, hoping to be able to offer a dialectic perspective on this inner-pagan conflict.

Since most pre-christian polytheistic religions where lacking an all-comprising dogmatically stipulated theological framework which could give us some general insights into the way historical pagans viewed divinity and reality I found it quite reasonable to first take a look at the traditional creation myths in order to gain some understanding of how our ancestors thought of the beginning of the world, the most supreme principle of being, the very ground of all existence. For only one who has a thorough understanding of how the concept of ultimate reality was perceived in the ancient world can also reliably comment on how a particular religious culture related to the nature of the gods and personality in general.

And as I started to reflect upon those myths and legends which were used by the pagan world to symbolically transmit their understanding of the creation of universe to future generations my attention was drawn to a central motife which appears to be almost omni-present among the ancient polytheisms:

Practically all pagan creation myths start off with a concept of primordial unity, an all-encompassing undivided cosmic whole from which the totality of all things worldly and individual arise but which in itself transcends individuality and distinction by far. Basically, there is NO SINGLE polytheistic mythology of my knowledge which would describe and acknowledge a pantheon of gods as its highest spiritual principle. There is NO SINGLE creation myth which opens with „in the beginning there were the gods and the gods created the universe“.

In Germanic mythology everything starts with Ginnungagap, the great gap, the primordial void which contains the whole potentiality of being within itself. For the ancient Greeks all things evolve from an original chaos while the Egyptians had a concept of creation out the all-encompassing primordial waters. As we can see the idea of a transpersonal and all-comprising unity as origin of the world is a very common theme, almost omni-present, in pagan creation myths.

Then, in a second emanationary step, duality is introduced: Muspelheim the realm of fire and Niflheim the realm of ice, both constituting the „shores“ of Ginnungagap, Uranos and Gaia, representing heaven and earth, evolving out the primordial chaos, and so on. Now, following the manifestation of polarity, the two poles of duality start to interact with each other: the fires of Muspelheim melt the ice of Niflheim, Uranos impregnates Gaia etc. thus paving the ground for the manifestation of further individual phenomena, the further evolution from one into many.

This process of manifestation, out of the primordial void and into plurality, is highly characteristic among all cultures commonly named „pagan“ nowadays and even more, it is one of the main differences between paganism and those streams of monotheistic religion which hold a separate personal and distinct creator god to be the origin of all things. Anyone possessing even a tiny glimpse of knowledge in the field religious symbolism should be able to trace and identify this golden thread of an emanationary process within an impressive number of polytheistic religions.

However, a lot more interesting and relevant to the topic of this essay are the consequences for the pagan concept of deity inevitably occurring from this view of creation: the gods are never regarded as the highest principle of existence (the alpha et omega of ecclesial and popular monotheism). Always and without exception the gods are something which appears on the stage relatively late in the process of emanation and just as all other things and individual phenomena also the gods are embedded within the greater context of the all-encompassing one, i.e. within a framework which is bigger than the gods themselves and which easily relavates all individuality and distinct personality they might possess.

Germanic mythology, for instance, explicitly describes the gods as mortal and even subject to the process of aging and also among the Celts and ancient Egyptians deities could be slain and vanish despite all their otherworldly power. I can hardly imagine a more vivid and unmistakable way of expressing that cosmic law is something profoundly transpersonal to which ultimately even the gods are subjected. No matter what the gods are or what their true nature is at the end of the day there is always something higher than the gods themselves, there are always laws and principles which exceed even the most exalted of pagan deities, consequently casting a light of relativity on the whole way personality was viewed within pagan culture.

Does it truly make any sense within such a cosmological framework to indulge in silly quarrels about the personality or non-personality of divine beings? Does the contemporary distinction between hard and soft polytheism truly have any realistic connection to those religious ideas which were actually circulating in the ancient pagan world? Or is it much rather an expression of immature separationist games, accounting more for the inflated egos of some postmodern philosopher-wannabes than resembling any historical view of deity and reality among actual pagan cultures?

I shall certainly not go so far as to claim that the average Teutonic farmer used to be some sort of mystical monist or that everyday spirituality among the Celts was characterized by meditative practice with the aim of ego transcendence. The traditional myths and archeological findings from the pre-christian era certainly suggest that the devotional worship of personal deities in combination with folkloristic healing practices and fertility magic did indeed play a central part among the pagan population of ancient Europe.

However, what I do say is that someone who regards such „hard-polytheistic“ believes and practices as incompatible with an ultimately monistic and transpersonal view of reality is certainly not even close to understanding the complex world view of our ancestors. The contemporary quarrels between hard and soft polies reflect back on a lot of things, e.g. hostility and separationism within modern neo-paganism, a preference of psychological identity games over authentic spirituality etc. Sometimes it might even reveal a shocking lack of understanding of essential cosmological and theological concepts. A connection to the actual world view of our ancestors, however, does not seem to exist here.

In an understanding of reality which assumes the creation of the world out of the undifferentiated primordial void there is no place for such an egocentric dualism. Within in world view which does not acknowledge a personal creator god as origin of the world but much rather regards the transpersonal principle of unity as ground of all being the line between personality and non-personality will inevitably and necessarily become blurred at the end of the day.

So, what conclusion do I draw from this?

Well, first of all, that the popular division into hard and soft polytheism which is so common nowadays does certainly not do any justice to the sheer complexity of ancient pagan thought. In fact, it what it does is taking a dynamic cosmology in which individuality and the transpersonal are both equally accounted for and reducing it to a playground where simple-minded theological illiterates can give in to their idiotic identity quarrels.

Secondly, it makes me wonder whether the honest acknowledgement of our profound incapacity to truly comprehend the paradox nature of divinity would not be a much better starting point for an authentic pagan spirituality. Who gives a bloody damn about whether the gods are personal and strictly distinct entities, transpersonal forms of energy or cultural archetypes when they could easily be all of this at the same time? How could we possibly pay them greater reverence but in a way of approaching the mystery of their true nature with an attitude of humble agnosticism?

Personally, I think a good example of how this respectful form of „not-knowing“ may be cultived is given by the practice of shamanism (traditional as well as neo-shamanism) where contact and interaction with the spirit world is sought after without granting philosophical interpretations as to the true nature of those worlds all-too-much room within the overall practice. For the modern shamanic practitioner as well as for the indigenous shaman only results are relevant. The relationship with the spirits, actual healing success, learning processes...all this is essential to the neo-shamanic practitioner and likewise plays the dominant part within traditional shamanic cultures. Pseudo-theological debates, philosophical interpretations of the shaman´s experiences and similar forms of intellectual masturbation can be saved for a lazy sunday afternoon.

I made a decision to call this approach „Agnostic Polytheism“ and whatever names and labels you may find suitable:

Please do not allow childish separationist maneouvering to further alienate the neo-pagan movement and, in doing so, impede the authentic rebirth of pagan spirituality in the modern world!

The gods will be grateful.

A brief introduction to Creation Spirituality

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.

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.

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.