Yes, it's a cheap tag line to elicit a response. But it's also true. In the ecclectic Pagan world, and in other circles I've run in, we talk an awful lot about accepting other people's paths and orthopraxy versus orthodoxy. And it's absolutely 100% true in one respect. It's not important to us what specific theology the others in our circles adhere to, if any at all. We share a lot in common, but rarely, if ever, everything. And that's prefectly alright. We can circle with eachother just the same. But we don't actually all have the same theology. More to the point we don't all have compatable theologies.
And I don't think we need to let this get in our way. I don't think we need or want an orthodoxy. But I've run into several discussions in the past few years, and really over the past decade and a half, that make me think that while practically, it doesn't matter, philosophically it's challenging. This is especially true as you get further out to the edge of mainstream modern Paganism. Christo-Paganism, nontheistic/atheistic Paganism, and the relationship between syncretistic Paganism and more defined paths like the various reconstructionisms and revivals push us to deal with these questions head on. And the results aren't always pretty.
For the most part, we're usually able to lean on the 'valid path' conversations that are the glue that keeps our communities more or less together. But as long as I've been part of the community (and before I was able to adequately work through these challenges myself) there has been a certain level of judgment from some quarters regarding those in the more controversial theological groupings.
Case in point was a recent article by T. Thorne Coyle which consisted of her interview with a non-theistic pagan friend of hers. The conversation was predestined to be interpreted in whatever way the reader was likely to take such a conversaton. I, personally, have struggled with the atheist versus theist issue personally, so while I though some of the wording was awkward at times, I could understand the difficulty in expressing how the interviewee felt without unduly offending people. But some people were offended. Because it's the internet, land of the easily offended.
But aside from the predictability of it, there's a real issue there. Some people really can't handle nontheistic approaches to Paganism without reading into it all sorts of intent into the commentary. Why? Because nontheists think us theists are wrong. And that sounds an awful lot like the judgy dogma our community recoils in horror from. And I don't take anything away from the genuine feeling of offense toward a nontheistic world view. We feel what we feel and while we may desire to change or improve upon those feelings, we can't grow if we simply deny them.
But here's the dirty little secret that any of us who think with a rational mind know about Pagan theology: We think they're wrong, too. What's more, the hard polytheists think the soft polytheists are wrong, the syncretistic Pagans think the reconstructionists and revivalists are wrong, etc, etc, etc. Why? Because we do have our theologies. And we wouldn't have them if we didn't think they were right. And I'm sorry, but there's no getting around the fact that while we can all respect eachother, circle with eachother, and learn from eachother, those theological approaches are not compatable. In short, we can't believe what we believe without thinking everyone else is wrong. And, as several bloggers have noted, rather eloquently, that's okay.
There's some practicality here, too. I would have a hard time in a Christo-pagan ritual, despite the fact that I know enough about their practice to know they aren't many of the things they are often accused of being. I actually admire their approach to deity. But it's just too close to my past for me to be able to approach it comfortably. Too much of it triggers an instant response in my head for me to get past it and enjoy a ritual based on it. And many people answered T. Thorne Coyle's article in much the same way with respect to non-theists. I'd have less of an issue with someone who had very similar physiological and psychological reactions to ritual, but assigned no divine meaning to them. But several people in the thread found the conflict irreconcilable. And that's okay. Don't circle with them, not because you don't like them, but because you wouldn't be able to get past the issue enough to get something out of it. Or circle with them anyway, but get something else out of it.
It doesn't mean we have to throw the baby out with the bath water, faction off into big D Denominations, and mutually excommunicate eachother. We can keep on just the way we always have, because we can believe we are right and still accept that we may not have all of the picture. Still accept that while we feel very strongly about our beliefs, we may not be right on all counts. Accept that the theological differences, while important, are not road blocks to community. There's value in our community. Real value. And there's value in the rituals the ecclectics among us perform, despite our personal theological conflicts. To keep those things alive we need to be honest about how we are the same, and how we are different, and what those differences mean. Because if we have these differences, but never work through their meanings and how they interact, they become irreconcilable conflicts.
No comments:
Post a Comment