~ MY CREDO ~
~ MY CREDO ~ 
This Credo originated through a discussion on the alt.religion.all-worlds newsgroup when someone asked me how I could claim the label "Christo-Pagan". Since my faith is a living, growing entity, my beliefs have changed some since this was written and I intend to update it to a much more essay-like format soon. Rather than leave this page blank, though, I thought that I would simply revise the original posts a bit for now. I intend to revise this very soon, so check back and see how I've grown!
never thirst,
cat
A warning... These four posts were in response to challenges made by Wizard and statements made by Eros during the initial flame war they started on Christo-Pagans. If they seem a bit flamey it is because I was under attack, and I apologize for the flames. Also, if they seem out of context a bit, it is because they are responses to a long ongoing conversation.
The first 2 posts deal with definitions and responses to statements made about Christianity as a whole. Wizard kept insisting that "Christianity" be defined as "mainstream Christianity" which his posts seemed to further associate only with the most conservative and fundamentalist segments. Many of us had responded (most noteworthy was Paul, who has a very heavy theological background) with counters concerning more liberal Christian belief systems. Our problem throughout this conversations has been a tendency for the more fundamentalist Pagans in the conversation to lump all Christians in one ball when there are so many denominations of Christianity that that is like lumping everyone in with the Gardnerians or the Strega.
In addition, there had been a consistent failure to reach a definition of Christo-Pagan which everyone could agree upon. Some Christo-Pagans still identify as Christian, some identify as Pagans who are Christian and others (like myself) identify primarily as Pagans who have retained some of our Christian beliefs and incorporate the Christian pantheon (or part of it... I myself identify with Jeshau ben David, but not with "Jehovah", and with YHWH and Elohim (earlier concepts of Jehovah) but not with the vengeful Lord God of the Hebrews.), and use the term Christo-Pagan in the context that most would Kelto-Pagan or Greco-Pagan. Trust me, there is a great deal of difference between a Greco-Pagan and a Hellene. There is also a great deal of difference between a Christo-Pagan and a Christian.
I hope that these posts will give you an idea of where _SOME_ of us Christo-Pagans are coming from. Not all of us... we are no more all alike than any other Christian or Pagan is. Also realize, please, that my willingness to share this information is not, as Eros would have it, an attempt to persuade others to adopt my belief system. I consider belief systems to be growing, organic things, greatly influenced by the background (social, family, etc.) of the believer. So my belief system would probably be no more appropriate for you than yours would for me (gee... doesn't that sound Pagan to you?). I, personally, have never even met a Christo-Pagan who proselytized or wanted people to believe as zie did... in fact, the concept of 'one truth' is one of the first "Christian" concepts usually discarded by those who take a Christo-Pagan path. So, I am not trying to 'convert' you by sharing this. Neither do I expect you to try and 'convert' me. As I say several times in these posts- I am happy to share my beliefs, answer any questions (questioning my belief system helps me to define it further and get rid of old assumptions which are destroyed by new truths), and discuss any concepts. I will _NOT_ however _debate_ or defend my belief system. It is a belief system, and I hold to it because it is mine and works for me. That is all the defense it needs.
God/dess blessings to you and may you never hunger, never
thirst.
with love,
cat
Paul wrote:
> If someone were to ask me "Can those who embrace
Christianity be
> accepted as Neo-Pagans?" I'd reply, "That depends.
What do they believe?"
Actually, the original question was _not_ "Can those who embrace Christianity be accepted as Neo-Pagans?" . The original question was "Can I _retain_ my Christian beliefs since I have become Pagan?" Your question in reply, however, does apply in both cases. It does indeed depend on "What do they believe." Primarily, it depends on which of their "Christian" beliefs they wish to retain and whether or not they are able to reconcile those beliefs within a Neo-Pagan belief system or path.
Of course, a couple of people, to prove their points, continue to move us from that _essential_ question.
Well, I cannot speak for _all_ Christo-Pagans, nor even, in fact, for "most" Christo-Pagans. I can, however, speak to my own personal beliefs.
When I first wrote this, I started by stating everything which I believed, which included a great deal of common Pagan beliefs on which I think we will have no argument. Therefore, if we can all _stipulate_ that I accept the basic tenants of Paganism as defined by Starhawk (in Chapter 1 of _Spiral Dance_) and by Margot Adler (as outlined in Chapter 1 of _Drawing Down the Moon_), and that I subscribe to the basic tenants of The Church of All Worlds (as outlined in their membership form, the CAW mission statement, the Statement of Purpose (as defined in the Bylaws) and the published encyclicals which appear in the CAW Membership Handbook), then we can save a lot of time and bandwidth. If we cannot stipulate these things, I will be doing a really HUGE amount of quoting of sources which should be pretty common to all of us, and much of which can be found in the FAQs of the alt.religion.all-worlds, alt.pagan and alt.religion.wicca newsgroups.
Stipulated or not, suffice it to say that these beliefs include
So, instead of going into my "Pagan" beliefs, I have chosen to address some of the beliefs which I retain from Christianity. In part 1, I will address how I view the bible, the nature of "the Christ" and my concept of 'the law' . In part 2, I will address, where I feel it is relevant, some of those points which have been brought up by others about "Christianity" which they feel prevent me from being Pagan and some reasons why inclusion of all my beliefs are important to my spiritual world view.
This is just a portion of my "Credo" which I have been working on formally for several years now (since I attended my first UU course on 'Developing your own Theology' which assists the individual in examining these types of concepts and how they define them within their own personal reference.)
As an aside, I would also like to state that my study of Christianity and the bible has lead me to a "reconstructed" image of Christ, much like that describe by Pascal in his post. What the first century church was like has been obscured throughout history, and many of the current theological theories are not in keeping with "traditional" or "mainstream" teachings.
First, since it is important to the basis of most of the other statements in my Credo...
I accept the arguments of theologians that the presence of Elohim (which is both plural and includes both the masculine and feminine genders) in earlier sources of the bible is an indication that the patriarchal concept was a change that was made at a later date. Therefore, I consider the concept of a multi-aspected, bi-gendered view of divinity as being supported by the bible. I further see this supported (again, as Riane Eisler points out) by Jesus' egalitarian treatment of women. I further take both a poemagogic view of "ultimate reality" (i.e, divinity, i.e, God/dess) and a macro-cosmic one. I believe that God/dess is both immanent and transcendent, both internal and external, both "manifest" and conceptionalized. Basically, I believe that God/dess is one of those things "Which-Cannot-Be-Known", and that all of our definitions of what God/dess is or is not are "seen darkly as thru a glass." However, because of my experiences, I cannot deny that that which I consider God/dess is not only archetypal, but able to manifest Zirself in my life.
Hmm... this next point is going to get me into some personally revealed theological concepts which may or may not make sense to anyone else.
Let me preface it by giving you some definitions which will be
relevant.
Sin = separation from ''God/dess", i.e., "sin" is
that which breaks the interconnectivity of all that is, which
separates us from our Selves (i.e., our "Higher Self"/"Inner
Self"/the Divine within us which is connected to the Divine without us) and from each other and from
God/dess, that which prevents us from realizing the potential of
what we are, that which prevents us from 'grokking' fully and
deeply.
I accept the Catholic theological concept that the 10 commandments are inherent in the Great Commandment. This means that I consider the Great Commandment to be the "spirit" of the law and the 10 commandments as simplified guidelines. The greater mystery becomes understood when the 10 commandments are examined in the light of the Great Commandment.
I also believe that the 10 commandments and the other restrictions given in the Pentateuch were given specifically to the Hebrew tribes, specific to their times and circumstances. Although I consider them of historical relevance and mythic importance, I do not consider them literal injunctions in my personal life. If I did, I would feel that all of the Levitican laws applied, not just the 10 commandments.
I also do not accept the divinity of Paul, therefore I do not accept the injunctions laid against the first century church by this 'rabbi' to be relevant to my life on a literal level, although I find some of his teachings to be insightful. (aside- I have heard, but not had a chance to explore, the theory that there are two defined chronological periods in Paul's teachings, one before his incarceration by the Romans and the others after. the theory stipulates that after he was released from prison Paul's teachings show a definite slant towards the Roman political "party line". I'm very interested in pursuing this line of inquiry further, so if anyone has any references for me on it, please e-mail me.)
I am not a Pauline, I am a Christo-Pagan. My beliefs have little to do with the teachings of Paul.
To address some of the points made about why Pagans cannot be Christian and vice versa, certain assumptions about the Christian faith were made by Wizard and Eros... to address a few of these I will quote and address them point by point {parenthetical notes are mine in an attempt to keep these snipped quotes in context}...
wizard (wizard@primenet.com) wrote:
> If you get rid of the monotheism
(i.e., if you get rid of monotheism then you cannot
be Christian)
I do not believe this...
Well, I actually addressed this issue above. Several people have
addressed this point as well, pointing out that both monism and
the concept of Trinity are considered by some to be
non-monotheistic.
At any rate, accepting Christ as a manifestation of God/dess is not the same as accepting a patriarchal and monotheistic view of God/dess. This point has been sufficiently addressed by others for "Christianity" as a faith. My personal belief is that monotheism and polytheism are arbitrary terms since I consider God/dess to be poemagogic in nature.
>and the beliefs in the freedom to destroy the land,
{i.e., the poster assumes that a basic tenet of
Christianity is a belief in the freedom to destroy the land.}
I do not believe this.
In fact, I know of no Christians who believe this, although I have heard of people stating that Fundamental Christianity considers the "dominion" of man over beast to allow them this license. However, this statement, in my experience, has always come from Pagans who are making a whole slew of sweeping statements about the evils of Christianity. I do, however, know many Christians who consider the admonitions in Genesis to be commands of STEWARDSHIP! Such concepts of Stewardship are actually a part of mainstream Christianity. It is most apparent in Catholicism, especially in the teachings of St. Thomas of Aquinas and of many of the monastic orders. In fact, Gen 2:15 states that "The Lord God then took the man and settled him in the garden of Eden, to cultivate and to care for it". The Bible many times brings to man's attention that God cares for all of his (sic) creation ( for it is "good"), it is therefore hubris for man to destroy God's creation wantonly.
> kill animals for no purpose,
{again, the poster assumes that "all
Christians" do this... that it is inherent in the Christian
belief system.}
I CERTAINLY do not believe this, and have NEVER believed this!
NOWHERE, in my journey through 2 different Christian faiths (The Church of Christ and Catholicism) nor in my study of comparative religion, nor in my investigation of the faith of my fellow Christians, have I EVER seen anyone state this idea nor show any biblical evidence for this idea. In fact, Orthodox Jewish tradition has very strong injunctions on the proper ritual slaughtering of animals for sacrifice (which was considered to be for a purpose) and maintaining a Kosher diet requires that all animals killed for consumption be slaughtered ritually... which is akin to the Native American concept of thanking the animal for it's sacrifice, the difference being that God is thanked rather than the animal's spirit.
> force others to believe as they do
{the poster assumes that "all Christians"
attempt to force others to believe as they do as a basic tenet of
their faith.}
I neither believe this is right, nor do I believe it to be possible.
In addition, there are Biblical injunctions against 'judging' others and trying to determine the spiritual validity of others. I am commanded to 'love my brother' and to 'be my brother's keeper' , which means that I must be concerned with zir welfare, not that I may take zir moral well being as my responsibility. I am also commanded to share the good news (i.e., the mysteries). I am not however, required to define the mysteries to you, just insure that you have had the opportunity to evaluate them yourself. At the time the command was given, there weren't a hundred bibles in every bookstore and library. Taken in context, this commandment does not even come close to meaning what you have construed it to mean.
> instill children with the belief that sexuality is evil
{the poster assumes that "all Christians"
believe that sexuality is evil}
<sigh> Where did you get THAT out of the Bible!?!?
Oh. BTW. I don't accept the concept of 'original sin' (many Christian churches do not. This was a theological teaching of the Catholic Church.) My understanding of the mysteries inherent in the story of 'The Fall' is a topic for a whole 'nother dissertation.
I will admit that the Bible warns against sexual misuse. So does Starhawk. What constitutes sexual misuse is a matter of interpretation. But sexuality is not viewed in the bible as inherently evil. (Granted... the formal teaching of the Catholic church considers it "inherently evil" and so do other 'sects', but this is neither Biblical nor universally accepted.) The 'evil' of sexuality is an Aesthetic concept, not a Biblical one, certainly not a concept taught by Christ (here's a good link which includes, among other things, some of what Christ actually said about sex). Sex is considered sacred, that is why it is not to be taken lightly. Ever read the Song of Songs? Read that (and some lovely historical and cultural commentary on it, complete with audio samples of how it sounds chanted in different traditions) and tell me that the bible considers sexual love to be 'evil'.
On the other hand, there are proscriptions against a great number of sexual acts which are considered 'sinful', some of them I agree with, some of them I consider cultural bias. For example, there is no prohibition against 'child abuse', marrying age for a woman was puberty, often as young as 10 or 11. Today this would be considered abhorrent, then it was normal.
What's more, my MOTHER who was a very strict Christian in a "mainstream" Christian church (at least it's very mainstream in the Southeast!), the Church of Christ, not only did not teach me that sexuality was evil, she taught me that it was holy, and this is why it was reserved for marriage. Every minister I ever heard speak on this issue in that church taught me the same thing, and I belonged to that Church until I was in my twenties. So I know that they (the Church of Christ), for one, did not "teach their children that sexuality is evil".
> make wild claims that Jews, Witches, Hindus and anyone
>else they don't agree with are in league with the Devil who
has a huge,
> international cult that murders thousands of people every
year, then I
> might begin to agree. Of course then I would only have a
philosophy and
>not a Christian religion.
Actually, these are such broad, prejudiced claims that I won't even address them, as they are not relevant to my belief system. They are relevant to the initial poster's (Wizard's) frame of reference and bigoted view of Christianity. Next thing you know you'll be telling us that "Christians" still claim that Jews have horns and eat babies! Or they aren't really Christians. Well, the only "Christians" that I know of that actually profess these types of beliefs as part of their dogma rather than out of the ignorance of their congregation are the most radical fundamentalists, like Tony Alamo's sect and the White Supremist sects. And by your own admission, 'fundamentalists' are a minority of "Christianity". I would hope that you would admit that these fanatics are outside even the minority of 'fundamentalists'.
If anyone has any further questions about my spiritual worldview, I will be happy to answer them. I will not 'justify' my beliefs, nor do I feel it right to argue them. Especially not with someone who has a limited worldview rather than a diverse one. And certainly not with someone with whom I cannot establish "common ground" from which to start. But I am always happy to talk about what I believe and what I feel.
BTW... I am an Eclectic Christo-Pagan, so the Christian mythos is not my only tradition or base. It is simply the one which creates the most challenge in my life, since I have to explain myself to more people with limited definitions about this part of my faith.
Finally, Wizard challenges why one would wish to retain any of their Christian beliefs since he feels that there is no "good" part of Christianity which is not present in Paganism. He challenges "Christo-Pagans" to state what is missing from Paganism that they have to look for in Christianity.
Well, many of the concepts I just went over I did not learn from Paganism. There is no mythical figure which is equal to Christ in Paganism. There are similar figures, but not any who are the same. And just as I feel that I do not wish to give up my identification with Athene simply because I have found Bridget, I do not feel that I have to dismiss Christ from my circle because I have found Lugh. I will not throw "the baby out with the bath water". I also have a draw to Judeo-Christian myth because of my heritage, just as I have a pull towards Celtic and Native American mythos because of my heritage (it sometimes surprises me why I am not drawn to Norse mythos more than I am). I am also drawn to the teachings of Christ because I find within them wisdom and mysteries which I have not found in Paganism. ( I don't know that those things aren't present in Paganism, they simply have not crossed my path.)
So, why don't I just go to church and leave Paganism alone? Well, first off, I DO still go to church occasionally. The things which draw me to Christianity often still draw me to Church as well. I am a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church in addition to being a member of the NeoPagan Church of All Worlds.
However, a Church is not a Circle, and I do not find the same sense of Pagan Community there that I do with my Grove or within CAW, since only liberal Christians would understand my "green" religion and those congregations are usually too devoid of ritual for my (spiritual) needs.
So, I take the best of both worlds and, hopefully, grow from following a path which crosses other paths on my way up the hill.
grok deeply,
cat
