Porphyry October, 2009
Pagan theology short: religious tradition
Is Paganism a religious tradition?
The sensible answer is “of course”.
But lets think about this a little be more. First, I guess it depends on how you define “religious,” “tradition,” and “religious tradition.” In some sense this is the same as asking if Paganism is a religion (which common sense again says it is) [1]. But I’d say its also more than simply asking if Paganism’s a religion, it also asks whether Paganism has a connection through time. Not sure exactly what its connected through time to, but a connection nonetheless. It could be a connection to a historical tradition, or it could be a repetitive series of actions or beliefs that exist through contemporary time.
First, lets look a little what the people who think about this professionally say.
Technically neo-Paganism doesn’t fall into the category of what would be considered a “Religion” at all. That term is generally reserved for the globe spanning, teevee prechin’, bureaucracies that uphold conservative social values everywhere. Instead it’s what’s known as a New Religious Movement (NRM) [2]. There are a lot of debates as to what, exactly, constitutes a NRM, but generally it needs to have come about recently (after World War II) and be different from other, existing, religions. This term is used by scholars of religion to distinguish newer movements from existing, global, religions. Of course the arguments come when you start asking what “different” means, and why Paganism, which claims a long tradition dating back before Christianity would be an NRM in the same category as spiritualism, theosophy, and the Unification Church.
Almost all neo-Pagan traditions fit into the NRM category because they are new, having been organized in the 1950’s and 1960’s. And they are definitely different from established Religions.
From a standpoint of studying and categorizing religions, differentiating between “established” Religions that have a long tradition and new ones that may have been created yesterday in someone’s back yard makes sense. The character of an established Religion will be different, it will have a rootedness in existing power structures and social groups, and it will have a heritage passed from one generation to another. A NRM may, or may not, have some of these characteristics, but it most likely will not be as integrated into public and political life like an established religion. This integration between the religious and public political power structures is one way that some have used to distinguish religions from smaller units like sects and cults.
For Ernst Troeltsch, an early 20th-century figure in the sociology of religion, “churches” were distinguished from “sects” by churches acceptance of the mainstream way of doing things, and their focus on hierarchy and external power structures [3]. Such organizations, like the religions of the book, are concerned with expanding worldly power, and dominating or “winning” as a religious faith. On the other hand there are groups within the same movement that are more inwardly focused, more concerned, in the case of Christians, with building brotherly love and practicing the teachings of Jesus. These more “liberal” groups form sects, which are distanced from the normal hubbub of the world and have little interest in dominating others. In Christianity they general form as a result of the main church claiming exclusivity to the sacraments. Those who call shenanigans on the boss church go get to form their own little one somewhere else and become a sect (or are killed or whatever). The little ones that survive long enough get to grow big and strong and become denominations. Or, if they are big and different enough, religions.
In many ways the idea of the sect as being inward focused on spiritual growth captures the neo-Pagan philosophy of “live and let live,” no proselytization, and organizational anarchy. Definitions that focus on the world, like Troelisch’s, also would place neo-Paganism in the sect or movement category, reserving the term “Religion” for the dominant, global, religious organizations.
Why does all this matter for neo-Paganism? Well, the first question that comes to mind is just how damn long do we have to practice our religion before it becomes accepted as a tradition? And how many of us does it take before neo-Paganism is accepted as a Religion in the same sense that other Religions are? And when will we get to drop that stupid association with the New Age movement anyway? [4]
The key for Paganism, I believe, is not the tradition part. We already have an established tradition, one that is consistent and accepted across the community. Our history dating back to Gardner and the Pagan revival is well known and accepted by just about everyone. Going further back than that, whether in the witchcraft branch of our ancestry or the reconstructionist branch, leads to a profoundly deep ancestry. Even if all that is dismissed, Paganism sits squarely within the Western esoteric tradition, something with a rich, and colorful, history.
While individual traditions within the community have their own provenance, our respect for heritage and elders is a common feature throughout the community. Perhaps because we are unsure of our place up against the “mainstream” religions, we lean even more heavily on learning about, understanding, and guarding our heritage and traditions.
The real question, I believe, is not whether neo-Paganism claims the mantle of “religion,” it already has, but how that mantle is perceived, and what we do with it. Do we want to grow from a “religion” into a “Religion?” Do we want a movement connected and interlocked with the existing power structures, but one that has more influence. Or do we want to remain as an outsider, with all the risks and benefits that entails.
It is useful to first understand the challenges that limit neo-Paganisms scope and influence, because they determine how our religion works in the wider world. I’m not necessarily advocating doing anything about any of this, that would be way too controversial, but I think some of the issues surrounding how we relate to the wider world are worth noting [5].
The first challenge is how neo-Paganism integrates into the rest of society. I believe that the answer here is: poorly. Why is this the case? The first and most obvious problem is that many neo-Pagan traditions are mystery religions and initiatory. Anything requiring initiation is not going to be as popular as something where the doors and doctrine are open and available for all to see. This initiatory and mystery tradition has given Paganism a false sense of exclusivity. The idea that the Goddess calls you when you are ready is an interesting, romantic, concept, but if you look around she certainly does call from one predominate demographic more than anyone else. And we all know who we are…[6]
What does this mean? It means that Paganism as a religious tradition is relatively slow growing (despite the surveys) and will be destine to being a marginal social force. If we keep bringing in people who look and think like we do we will not be as powerful a voice as we could be. Why should we want to? In times when there is a no-shit ecological and environmental crisis, for us to stay out of power is shameful. And I don’t mean going to our eco-action meetings, I mean speaking out on the teevee forcefully and righteously for the earth. I mean growing Paganism so that there are more voices out there speaking for the earth.
The second challenge is the “no proselytization” rule. This is a fundamental part of our theology, and violating it would violate the actual idea of Paganism as being tribal and local as opposed to global and catholic (small C). But it limits our influence and ability to grow as a religion. One would think, and I do, that given the interest in magic, witchcraft, and sorcery amongst our youth we wouldn’t need to recruit. Posting a flyer at Borders [7] would be sufficient to garner an ever-increasing number of new Pagans just looking to participate. That does not seem to be the case. And I speak from experience as I am affiliated with one of the larger neo-Pagan groups in a large metropolitan area. Sure we get some drop-bys, but few stay, and those that do are older and mature [8]. Of course that could be us, probably is, but I don’t see the kids that don’t show up at our rituals showing up at other Pagan events in the numbers I’d expect.
What does this mean? It means we’re doing something wrong. Kids are naturally magical. There is a tremendous interest in many of the elements of our religion. We even have the second biggest holiday of the year (Samhain) after Christmas (Yule), but we cannot convert that into members, influence, or new covens.
Why should we care? We should only care if we think we have a message that counteracts the prevailing one of the earth being subject to Man’s rule. We should care if we want to counter the mainstream Religions in their treatment of the Earth, gays, women, and knowledge. Religions, as we have discussed, are linked to the larger political and social forces that shape history. Sects, and NRMs, tend to be less plugged into how society works, and have less influence. Of course there is a danger, Jesus message sure does get lost in the bureaucracies and dogma of the Christian Religions. Ours might too. But it seems like its seldom we actually get around to talking about these options and trade-offs.
The third issue is the tendency we have of not seeing our religion as a family tradition, but a choice. What I’m talking about is the overwhelming pressure that’s placed on kids growing up in Protestant or Catholic (or Muslim) families to adopt and believe their religious traditions. Now many of us (I am not one) grew up in traditional religions and have probably vowed to never inflict that crap on our kids. That is probably a wise thing, but the lack of a strong tradition of passing our religion from one generation to the next hurts our ability to sustain us as a tradition.
Reinhold Niebuhr [9] in his concept of how religions, sects, and denominations differ from each other saw sects facing a challenge after the first generation. Those who remain in the sect after the first generation of founders generally do so for very different reasons than the first generation. Initially the sect is attempting to differentiate itself from the main religion which it has broken off of, but with second generations social and economic forces, including rising incomes of an expanding membership, tend to push sect members into taking on a more integrated view of their role in the world.
In some ways Paganism is different, the founders, and the newer members, come to it for very different reasons than say members of a Christian sect would. But at the same time those reasons, dissatisfaction with traditional religion, interest in magic, even being called by the Goddess, are reasons peculiar to America and Britain in the 20th century. Whether those reasons stay relevant will determine how Paganism goes forward, and how it relates to the world. How they change with the changing technological, social, and political forces may determine how many come to our tradition in the future.
Why does this matter? It means that there are few families that show up to Pagan events (at least the ones I attend) when you compare that with a “normal” church [10]. Where is the religious education for our kids? Its pretty well nonexistent, though some groups do try (such as spiral scouts) but in general there doesn’t seem to be that critical mass of kids in most areas to justify specialized curriculum and effort.
Why does all this matter? Should people come to Paganism if they want to? Shouldn’t we wait for them to be called as opposed to seeking them out? Shouldn’t we avoid the pain in the ass behavior of traditional religions that indoctrinate kids instead of letting them decide on their own? Sure. But there are risks and consequences.
One of the biggest risks is the survival of Paganism as a religious tradition into the future. While it has survived, and grown, since the 1950’s there are demographic changes, including changes in how people communicate and gather, that may affect neo-Paganism. Likewise the beautiful environment we worship in now may change radically in the future. A desert dustbowl devoid of large mammals may not be as attractive to worship as a balanced hardwood deciduous forest.
But the biggest risk is that if we don’t try, the other side wins. Again. By default [11].
Christianity won out originally because Paganism didn’t offer a path for the poor to see something better out of their lives. It won out because some elements of society, women for example, were excluded from some of the mystery cults. It’s winning changed the way the West worked for 2000 years.
Now I’m not advocating going out and thumping the Witches’ Bible or dragging people to circle. What I am advocating is asking ourselves what kind of tradition do we have, and what kind of tradition do we want to make. And how we can come together in a spirit of love for the Lord and Lady, under their protection and guidance, and build something that honors them, and saves the world. Because, without more voices like ours there may be no hope for the earth.
That is the real question behind a discussion of whether Paganism is a religious tradition. What kind of tradition are we, and what kind do we want to make?
[1] Throughout this article I’m going to use the term “religion” to mean several different things. There is the “capital R” Religions who are the popular kids on the block that first come into mind when someone we know says “I’m religious.” Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Shinto, Taoism, etc. There is also the “little r” religion, which simply means a belief system that you accept and follow. So we can legitimately say that the religion of Paganism is not a Religion. Of course this requires a little more explaining than I’m doing here, which we will do later in the article.
[2] Christopher Partridge (ed.). New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects, and Alternative Spiritualities, Oxford, 2004. The whole idea of what “new,” “religious,” and “movement” means gets worked over again as you consider NRMs. Many NRMs are “new” to one group, but “old” to another. Take Zen Buddhism (please) for example: its pretty well established in the Asian market, but its pretty new in the West. Western esotericism, which is pretty much what we mean by “Pagan,” is perhaps the real categorical overlord in our discussion of Paganism as a religious tradition. However that requires a thorough discussion of the development of the esoteric tradition in the West, something that we don’t have time for here.
[3] Malcom Hamilton. The Sociology of Religion, Routledge, 1995, influential before 1920 in terms of theology, Troeltsch’s writings are still considered important in the sociology of religion.
[4] The tendency to lump Paganism in with the New Age movement is both understandable and tragic. This is understandable, because the New Age movement and Paganism have many concepts, practices, and followers in common. Tragic because the perceived narcissism and shallowness of the New Age movement taints Paganism with its stink, which is terrible for our serious and faith-filled intent. I am not making an argument that the New Age movement is narcissistic, shallow, or stinks, I’ll leave that for others. What I am saying is that the association between the New Age and Paganism is usually made by our detractors, and it doesn’t help us.
[5] I personally believe that neo-Paganism should work to figure out how to remain anarchic and diverse, while at the same time becoming a unified voice and community that co-exists within existing power structures instead of outside of them. This may not be easy at all, and may entail brining in people to the community who are not like us, but at the same time I believe that the potential to do good through a Pagan perspective is huge, and much needed in the world today. If nothing else there needs to be a powerful Western counter-weight to the religions of the book, something we should be providing but are not.
[6] While we can examine surveys and polls which show us clustered around the information technology and nursing/teaching professions, I think a more fundamental demographic is disenfranchised middle-class and white. Of course there are exceptions, but it is the disenfranchisement, the sense that you don’t count or that the way congregants interact in mainstream churches, that really matters when thinking about the general demographic that comes to Paganism. I am fond of pointing out that all the jackasses that run around in mainstream churches would have been the same jackasses, just Pagan, in the times before Christianity. Just because Paganism today has a lower jackass to geek ration doesn’t mean it didn’t have a higher one when it was mainstream. This is, in my opinion, the real challenge to any growth or expansion of Paganisms influence, how to deal with jackasses.
[7] Ok Barnes and Noble as Borders is pretty much a toy story that occasionally sells books. Ok, what I really mean is lurking on the Amazon boards and posting because that is where people buy books now.
[8] Having had 50 people show up for a ritual I am thankful that only the committed few stay. Otherwise this column would be talking about the problems of Pagan crowd control and managing large groups…
[9] Hamilton (1995). I know I keep citing the survey work and not the original sources, but this is a short, and I’m not sociologist of religion anyway. The idea of how to classify and distinguish between religions, sects, denominations, cults and whatnot has been debated extensively in the literature of the sociology of religion. My focus in this discussion is in the basic ideas, not on the detail build-out on those ideas that would be necessary for a full discussion of how you define various types of religion.
[10] My basis of comparison is a Unitarian Universalist church where approximately 1/3 of the Sunday attendance is children, and about 20-100 adults are involved in teaching the kids every day.
[11] My use of polarities and the language of conflict is simply a function of how I see the world. In truth there are a large number of Christians, both liberal and conservative, speaking up for the environment. Likewise the equation of “grow big, become inclusive = gain more influence” is not necessarily valid. It is entirely possible that bringing more voices to the table would change the message, or disrupt it entirely. I think the challenge is a delicate and difficult one: how to decide what direction the Pagan tradition should go in so that it keeps its diversity and fundamental values, but becomes a more decisive force in the world. I do not pretend to have the answer, I’m just poking you with the question.
Tags: religion, tradition
