Wiccan and Evangelical Communication
I'm a Neopagan (a larger group of non-Judeo-Christian religions of which Wicca is one) and just came back from Pantheacon, one of the biggest Neopagan conventions in the country (based in the San Francisco Bay Area). One of the talks was by a Wiccan priest and a man named Brooks Alexander who identies as an "Evangelical Conservative Christian". They were talking about the need for communication between Neopagans and Conservative Christians. Mr. Alexander is opposed to the Rapture movement (in fact he sees it as a herasy). He's willing to agree to disagree with non-Christians. He thinks conservative Christians are right, but also thinks that it's up to God, not mortal Christians, to judge others. He thinks that Conservative Christians made a huge mistake in allying themselves with Bush, becoming so political and so forth, because there's going to be a backlash. He also said that one thing that's going on with Conservative Christians is that they're scared that the whole Western world is turning away from Christianity.
He said that one major mistake that Wiccans made, though, was to call themselves "witches", because conservative Christians thought that they were practicing Medieval, Satanic witchcraft rather than that they were members of a modern religion. He said that therefore he's trying to convince other conservative Christians to see Wicca specifically and Neopaganism in general as tribal (I think he means something more like "gentile" than what most scholars mean) rather than deliberately Satanic. The difference, as he put it, is that Wicca has been treated as a "heresy" rather than something that needs missionary work. That's why so many Conservative Christians have just responded to us by quoting the Bible. If it's "tribal", than it "requires" what he called "missionary work". Now, what he meant by this, he went on to explain, is something benign. Basically, trying to find something "lacking" in our religion that Christianity can fill.
He also said that he wants respect on both sides and to have open communication. He thinks that, while our theologies are incompatible, the people in both religious categories are VERY compatible, because he sees a lot of common values and a desire to be generally good willed on both sides.
This is definitely a turn for the better, if conservative Christians listen to him, and I'm glad that he wants a respect-respect relationship. I think this is definitely something to respond to and I definitely agree that mutual respect and open communication are always good. At the same time, I don't want to walk into this naively. They still want to convert us, and I wish they'd just leave us alone. Also, they don't all share his views. I'm wondering what other people think about all this and would like to see some brainstorming on how we can have mutual respect and open communication while at the same time avoiding getting suckered in by conservative Christian propoganda.
San Jose
CA
95110
getting past the "satanist" snafu
bluepilgrim, as I said, I'm a Pagan. I get that non-Christian almost never means Satanic. =D Certainly, Pagan and Satanic are two totally separate things. And, thanks for all the effort you put in to talking about this point.
There ARE several things I'll point out, though. First, there ARE people, both now and way back when, who identify/ied as "Satanists". There's the Church of Satan, founded by Anton Levay in modern times. There were also, I believe, Satanists in France as early as the reign of Louis XIV.
Also, maybe it would have been clearer if I had put it in quotes, but I was talking about what this Evangelical said was confusing for conservative Christians. I think what he was getting at was that these conservative Christians really thought Wiccans were, oh, I don't know, eating babies or something. I realize that medieval witches weren't doing any such thing, but Church writing of the time certainly said that they did and I think the Evangelical was implying that many people in his community really believed several century old church documents. If it sounds crazy to you, it sounds crazy to me too. I'm just reporting, here.
So, I thought it was clear that I know that magical practices in, say, the Medieval period weren't "Satanic", but if not, I apologize. Many of those practices, however, may not have been religious at all, but purely magical. I guess we're having a game of cyber telephone here. %-)
But, could we please move past this point and discuss relations between progressive religious movements and conservative Christianity?
Well...
- You DID give an excuse to beat up on the old "witch myth". :)
(And, of course, past Christians were also talking about Jews eating babies, and only a decade ago we heard about babies being tossed out incubators by Iraqis - dead babies is popular smear, apparantly).
I think the best way to handle this depends on which conservative Christians you are talking about, and to. Some people you can give basic information to, like about Satanism being rooted in Christian beliefs. That usually gets them to point where they will affirm that that's THEIR belief, based on a few Biblical passages, more or less -- but much of that is not Biblical at all, but a mythology which has grown up around scripture with other things added in (similar to the common eschatology of dispensationalism). In some respects it's easier to talk to orthodox fundamentalists who DO know the Bible.
More difficult are those who are not theologically or Biblically educated but pick up dribs and drabs from a preacher who might well be spewing out just nonsense. (I've found it bit strange that so many people who insist the Bible is the true word of God have not actually read throught it, much less studied it thoroughly -- and that even I can often quote things from it they had never heard before).
More difficult yet are the "creative" right wing Christians who catch on to a few things from here and there but just invent much of what they think, and tack "God" onto almost any opinion they may have about anything.
Most difficult are the con men and/or crazies, who may be fairly intelligent and well read, but use religion for purposes of politics, power, and profit. They, as well as the other, read the Bible quite selctively and with very limited or controlled hisoricl contextualization.
The problem is that the framing is different for all these groups, and for other variations -- they really don't all think alike. I'm not sure there is universal frame to get them from there to here. Christians, especially "true believers" are infamous for fighting with each other -- and the same is true for many Muslims, and for Jews. Any "true believer" tends to be intolerant of any deviation from what they "know to be true".
(See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article560098.ece
THE WINNERS
WALKING across a bridge, I saw a man on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: “Stop. Don’t do it.”
“Why not?” he asked.
“Well, there’s so much to live for!”
“Like what?”
“Are you religious?”
He said: “Yes.”
[...])
Many "conservative" Christians seem to care less about the constitution and such than their personal religious beleifs, which they think should preavail -- that's a major meme of the right wing, tying in with their "Christian nation" myth. Perhaps the best approach is to point out in various ways that the only way to preserve their right to believe as they want is to preserve everyone's right to do the same -- the wall of separation. Few will ever bwecome tolerant of other's beliefs, I suspect, but "peaceful coexistence" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Principles_of_Peaceful_Coexistence ) might be possible if they have concerns about someone else's religion taking over.
Note there are two counters to this: one is that another "religion" -- secular humanism" has already taken over (a fair bit of agiprop put out in this one), and the other is faith that they must prevail because God is on their side, and any setbacks is just God "testing" them. It's circular reasoning, but it's a tight circle with few, if any, breaks in it. This is similar to the old "office rules": 1. The boss is always right; 2. If the boss is wrong see rule one.
One approach which is sometimes helpful is "exchanging beliefs": "Do you beleive in one God who is everywhere? ... You do? I believe in a Godess who is everywhere. ... what do to celebrate a holy day? ... Oh, that's very nice, I do something like for one of my holy days..." By this exchange, lightly spoken, there is an undelying assumption that you both are "religious" and also equal, at least as far pursuing your own beliefs and practices. And, of course, there is an exchange of information (which can be framed in helpful ways, such as "We celebrate the idea of rebirth by the rituals of..."). You can also add "I heard that the Muslims have something like that too; they have a holy day called ...). The context becomes: we are both human; we both have a spirtual side; we both work with religious paractices and ideas; we both believe in the golden rule in some form (virtually everyone has that as part of their religion). You can even try "You beleive in Hell? We don't -- we believe in Karma, where you have to work off you "sins" and learn the lessons in situations you face", which establishes the idea of a moral code and consequences of some sort. So you can work on the "essential unity" of all religions.
good idea
I really like the exchanging beliefs method. Simple and effective. No blame, no shame. Beautiful.
A Group to be evangelized
I am new here, so two words of background: I am an ordained Christian minister who also happens to be extremely progressive in perspective. From my observation, I would be very concerned about your religion (or any religion) being identified as a "group to be evangelized". In your post you commented on this being a respect-respect relationship. I would question that frame. As long as you are framed as "to be evangelized" you are the lesser in the relationship...you are understood to be wrong, immature, childish, needing salvation; while they are seen as the holders of truth, right, mature, givers of salvation. This puts you in the child role and them in the parent role. Note that the preferred parental role of conservative Christians is Strict Father...for your own good they will burn you at the stake, etc. When Christians say "evangelize" (even progressive Christians) it is intended to correct a spiritual defect within the evangelized. If a Christian person or group intends to grant you equal respect, they will more likely use the term "dialogue". There are currently dialogues between some Christian denominations and others, between some Christian denominations and Islamic followers, between some Christian denominations and Jews. I am unaware of any Christian denomination that has made the offer to dialogue with pagans or, more specifically, wiccans. If you are looking for mutual respect and dialogue, the group likely to be most open and willing to participate in such is a pan-denominational network called Progressive Christianity. Their tenets specifically state (I am paraphrasing) that they see themselves as having a way, through Jesus, among many ways found in other religions, to understand God.
New! satanists
Much of Christianity (and the other Biblical religions) borrowed ideas from other religions and cultures all over the ancient world: "Son of God", a Messiah (both of the two basic concepts, often merged into one), virgin birth, and baptism. for example.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mythology
has some information for starters, and a good book is "The History of God" by Karen Armstrong.
Well educated Christians know about this, of course, but what to do with this and how with people who don't understand is problematic. Many of them are barely familiar even with the Bible (in any of its variations). Rather than try to explain these things, if we can just get people to live and let live, each to his own, that would be a worthy accomplishment. Most people don't want to become theologians.
A key consideration is that the founders of the US went for the wall separation of church and state http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html because many of the people involved did not want to be told thier version of Christinity was wrong by some one practicing some other from of Christianity (among other reasons, such as NOT wanting a theocracy -- which ruins both government AND religion).