Re: Re-Paganization
Jenny
 
Fri Apr  9 14:55:55 1999
I'm a medievalist, and much of the material I work with is profoundly ambiguous.  To the eye it looks Christian, yet there are many "Pagan" elements to be found within it.  In general, I'm strongly against "Paganizing" or "re-Paganizing" this stuff, for several reasons.*p*1) It creates a false dualism.  Neo-Pagans have a very unfortunate tendency to create stereotypical, dualist histories.  We divide the world into Good Guys and Bad Guys (Christians vs Pagans) and insist on neat divisions between the two.  Reality isn't like that -- and it wasn't like that in the past.  Christianity and Paganism were not so terribly different, and they were certainly not irreconcilable enemies.  *p*When we look at the past, we see Christo-Paganism everywhere.  The Italian Benandanti witches, who said that Christ had ordained them to protect the crops.  Holy wells, where Christian saints were honored with rites that dated back to pre-Christian times.  The Book of the Conquests of Ireland, where Pagan and Christian mythology merge.*p*If we insist on dissecting these things -- on splitting them into "Pagan" and "Christian" parts -- we do violence to them.  We define one half as "pure" (the Pagan bits) and the other as "pollution" (the Christian parts).  In doing so we close our eyes to the beauty of the merger, of the syncretistic religion that our ancestors really did follow.*p*2) It demonizes Christianity.  In my experience, people who want to separate Pagan and Christian elements usually do so because they despise Christianity.  They view it as a pollution that defiled our ancestors' religion.  *p*I think it's okay to try to "untangle" Christian and Pagan threads in medieval material -- IF you're doing it to learn more about what Paganism was like.  With the Celts you have to, because almost all of our material was written down by Christians and was influenced by their beliefs.  But too often the motive for this division seems to be Puritanism:  a desire to "purify" the Pagan elements from the Christian "dross".  That, IMO, is religious bigotry pure and simple.*p*Worse, people don't really divide things into "Pagan" and "Christian" parts.  They divide them into "good" things and "bad" things, then arbitrarily label the "good" things "Pagan."  For instance Christmas Trees, Santa Claus, Jack in the Green, and dozens of other holiday customs were clearly created by Christians.  But because we like them (and because we think they look Pagan) many people insist that they're "really" Pagan.  Even though historically they definitely are not.*p*Again, this serves to demonize Christianity.  Christians can love nature and be inspired by it too.  When we insist that all nature-oriented things are "really" Pagan, we create false and misleading dualism.*p*3) It denies our own creativity.  We can be inspired by the Gods just as much as our ancestors.  Rather than re-writing our ancestors' wisdom to make it more pleasing to us, why not simply seek our own inspiration?*p**br*For me the bottom line is, what's the motive?  If you're trying to study Paganism then division is fine.  I have no problem with separating the Christian and Pagan myths of the Book of Conquests.  Though I also think that a serious student ought to read the original text, in its original Christo-Pagan state.  However if the motive is Puritanism then no, I don't think it's a good thing to do.  *p*I see a difference between a) trying to understand the various threads that make up a Christo-Pagan custom, like well-dressing;  and b) taking something Christian and changing the words to make it sound Pagan.  If I'm going to make something up, I'd rather "make it up" whole-cloth, from my own inspiration and the words that the Gods have spoken to me, rather than twisting somebody else's words.*p*Jenny*br*
Re-Paganization
Taliesin_2
410
Fri Apr  9 08:20:05 1999