Does neo-paganism have anything to do with paganism?

This is a question for anybody (hence where I posted it), but I would love to hear from those who follow a path like druidism, asatru, wicca, etc. I haven't really met (even when I moved in pagan circles) that many people who weren't teens who believed that their religion was really "the old way" but rather that there were certain connections to whatever ancient pagan path they were reconstructing (? not sure if that's the right word). The question is, how much of the modern practice/beliefs are similar to the ancient ones? To make this clearer, let me give two examples.

Wicca was "created" primarily by Gerald Gardner, but built a great deal on the (incorrect) scholarship of Margaret Murray. It is now fairly well acknowledged among Wiccans that Wicca was not passed down underground from "the burning times." This hasn't stopped people (nor should it) from being attracted to the Wiccan path. However, I've talked to many wiccans who believe that particular rituals and beliefs in Wicca are genuinely pagan (not neo-pagan), and often times this isn't the case. Wicca does have an ancient tradition behind it, but this comes from ceremonial magic.

Another example is druidry. While historians debate over just what we can know, there is general agreement that if we can know anything it is very little. There are just too few sources with too many issues. Yet the "druid movement" has a long history of its own going back centuries.

Basically, I'm interested in learning what people who follow neo-pagan paths think connects their tradition with the ancient one it is based on, how much is innovation, how much is in common, etc.

There were no written records of ancient pre-Christian European religious practices.

However, certain myths, stories, etc. have survived down the ages through folk tales, ancient songs, ancient rituals/celebrations still practiced in some form today, old stories, etc. We can also take the writtings of Roman historians and Christian monks, though not at face value of course (for example, there is no archaeological evidence supporting the idea that pre-Christian Europeans sacrifised people).

"Neo-pagan" in my opinion, refers to those who utilize purely modern sources, such as Gardner, as a basis for their practices and introduce the concept of "magick"among their relgiious belief set.

And while there can be no "true pagans", since the systematic attempts of Christianity to wipe out the older competition, there are groups who seek to reconstruct the old religions by deconstructing, ie peeling away first Christian and then Roman influences, on ancient songs, stories, rituals and celebrations, peeling back the years to reveal what we can know of the ancient ways.

This is of course ignoring for the moment the simple inancuracies of using the term "pagan" to describe we who look to older gods. I refer to myself as a non-Abrahamic Theist. More of a mouthful, certainly, but much more accurate.

I tend to refer to them interchangeably out of the inherent vagueness of the terms and laziness.

While much of Wicca is borrowed from ceremonial magic and esoteric societies, these sources in turn borrowed their stuff from older mythologies and philosophies. Where do we draw the line at "new" when every generation adds its uniqueness to the concepts?

Guitar's Cry said:

I tend to refer to them interchangeably out of the inherent vagueness of the terms and laziness.

While much of Wicca is borrowed from ceremonial magic and esoteric societies, these sources in turn borrowed their stuff from older mythologies and philosophies. Where do we draw the line at "new" when every generation adds its uniqueness to the concepts?

Click to expand...

Where to draw the line?

When there is no archaeological and/or archival evidence to show that pre-Christian cultures utilized the subject in question.

I don't know much about paganism, but I think Neo-Paganism is very similar to New Age (in fact, I think it plays a central role in New Age), and I find New Age to differ greatly from traditional paganism.



.

AxisMundi said:

Where to draw the line?

When there is no archaeological and/or archival evidence to show that pre-Christian cultures utilized the subject in question.

Click to expand...

Why make it at pre-Christian culture? There were pagans after Christ...

Tathagata said:

I don't know much about paganism, but I think Neo-Paganism is very similar to New Age (in fact, I think it plays a central role in New Age), and I find New Age to differ greatly from traditional paganism. .

Click to expand...

New Age is a mix of old traditions and philosophies cobbled together with some modern culture and science thrown in somewhere.

Sounds like the same old story to me.

Guitar's Cry said:

New Age is a mix of old traditions and philosophies cobbled together with some modern culture and science thrown in somewhere.

Sounds like the same old story to me.

Click to expand...

That's true, but I don't think paganism plays a large role. From neo-paganism, it takes Gaia worship and Druidism, and even nature worship. Paganism is pre-Christian polytheism, which I don't find to play a part in New Age (having been one at one point, I've experienced that). New Age takes heavily from Hinduism, quantum mysticism, alien channeling, Buddhist meditation, and neo-pagan elements. But I never found polytheistic god worship at all.


.

Guitar's Cry said:

Why make it at pre-Christian culture? There were pagans after Christ...

Click to expand...

Thus we arrive at the innacuracy of the word.

"Pagan" originally indicated someone who "was without relgiion", a Christian who lived far from any town or city where priests were few and far between.

Eventually it evovled in meaning to indicate someone who was "without the Christian religion".

However, what is indicated by "pre-Christian" are people in an area that had not yet been overtaken by the Christian religion and the older religion still thrived.

AxisMundi said:

Thus we arrive at the innacuracy of the word.

"Pagan" originally indicated someone who "was without relgiion", a Christian who lived far from any town or city where priests were few and far between.

Eventually it evovled in meaning to indicate someone who was "without the Christian religion".

However, what is indicated by "pre-Christian" are people in an area that had not yet been overtaken by the Christian religion and the older religion still thrived.

Click to expand...

But even those "without religion" were not without spirituality, especially when we think of folk spirituality and their influence on modern paganism. Since it was far from the cities, it was most probably based on nature in terms of agriculture or hunting.

Modern Neo-paganism is usually described as nature-based.

Tathagata said:

That's true, but I don't think paganism plays a large role. From neo-paganism, it takes Gaia worship and Druidism, and even nature worship. Paganism is pre-Christian polytheism, which I don't find to play a part in New Age (having been one at one point, I've experienced that). New Age takes heavily from Hinduism, quantum mysticism, alien channeling, Buddhist meditation, and neo-pagan elements. But I never found polytheistic god worship at all..

Click to expand...

Hm...I see your point. I think like AxisMundi suggested, the nuances of the term "pagan" are coming into play.

Guitar's Cry said:

But even those "without religion" were not without spirituality, especially when we think of folk spirituality and their influence on modern paganism. Since it was far from the cities, it was most probably based on nature in terms of agriculture or hunting.

Modern Neo-paganism is usually described as nature-based.

Click to expand...

Those "without religion" tended to keep many of the old practices and festivals, merely ignoring the religious roots of that celebration, or applying Christian attributes to it. One merely has to look at any area of Europe to see this in any number of ancient annual celebrations still practiced today as religiously neutral or Christianized.

And I would disagree with your second point as well. What has been refered to as "neo-pagan" includes versions of Asatru, for example, and worship of the Egyptian Deities as well.

Problems arise with this term, however, as even recognized definitional sources disagree as to what the term means as well.

Britanica online - any of several spiritual movements that attempt to revive the ancient polytheistic religions of Europe and the Middle East. These movements have a close relationship to ritual magic and modern witchcraft. Neo-Paganism differs from them, however, in striving to revive authentic pantheons and rituals of ancient cultures, though often in deliberately eclectic and reconstructionist ways, and by a particularly contemplative and celebrative attitude. Typically people with romantic feelings toward nature and deep ecological concerns, Neo-Pagans centre their dramatic and colourful rituals around the changes of the seasons and the personification of nature as full of divine life, as well ...

Webster's simply states - : a person who practices a contemporary form of paganism (as Wicca)... and for "pagan" - 1 : heathen 1; especially : a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome) 2 : one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person...

Now, Britanica is wrong since not all non-Abrahamic Theists (nAT) pracite ritual magik or witchcraft, and many of us see it as something... well, I don't wish to be insulting to those who do, but I think you get the idea. And not all nAT faiths are animistic either.

And I'm sure we don't have to even bother discussing the latter definition from Webster's.

In terms of Neo-Paganism its Wicca that I've been (not am) actively involved in, Alexandrian and Gardnerian Wicca as practiced in the UK in particular.

I don't think there is any historical lineage to the traditional Paganism of old in Wicca. Historians have made that clear to me. The clearest remnants of traditional Paganism in the UK can be seen in activities like maypole dancing, morris dancing and some folk songs.

What I do believe is that nature-worship/earth-centric spirituality is of course extremely old, is deeply entrenched in all of us and that Neo-Pagan religions generally serve that spirituality.

Scarlett Wampus said:

In terms of Neo-Paganism its Wicca that I've been (not am) actively involved in, Alexandrian and Gardnerian Wicca as practiced in the UK in particular.

I don't think there is any historical lineage to the traditional Paganism of old in Wicca. Historians have made that clear to me. The clearest remnants of traditional Paganism in the UK can be seen in activities like maypole dancing, morris dancing and some folk songs.

What I do believe is that nature-worship/earth-centric spirituality is of course extremely old, is deeply entrenched in all of us and that Neo-Pagan religions generally serve that spirituality.

Click to expand...

I can agree with that.

Our early ancestors lived intimatly close to nature.

Guitar's Cry said:

Hm...I see your point. I think like AxisMundi suggested, the nuances of the term "pagan" are coming into play.

Click to expand...

It was late and I had to work early, so I apologize for the quick answer. Let's see if I can go into more depth...

Tathagata said:

That's true, but I don't think paganism plays a large role. From neo-paganism, it takes Gaia worship and Druidism, and even nature worship. Paganism is pre-Christian polytheism, which I don't find to play a part in New Age (having been one at one point, I've experienced that). New Age takes heavily from Hinduism, quantum mysticism, alien channeling, Buddhist meditation, and neo-pagan elements. But I never found polytheistic god worship at all.

Click to expand...

The word "Pagan" has many usages. As AxisMundi suggested earlier:

"Pagan" originally indicated someone who "was without relgiion", a Christian who lived far from any town or city where priests were few and far between.

Eventually it evovled in meaning to indicate someone who was "without the Christian religion".

Click to expand...

Hinduism has been referred to as pagan before, as has--interestingly enough--things like Judaism and Islam.

Some have referred to anything non-Abrahamic.

I personally use it as a term to refer to anything that puts a heavy emphasis on Nature, or puts emphasis on the more earthly qualities of human existence (including Asatru). I recognize that's broad and there are many exceptions, but it is simply a label that seems to work for me. Are Kemeticists (right term?) pagan? They are usually found in that category, and that's fine. Considering that the vernacular use of "Pagan" is including anything either polytheistic, nature-based, or magic-based, I think it works well enough to get along.

As for the roots of Neo-paganism, I would consider the influence of archetypal mythology (through Frazer, Jung, and Campbell) to build a bridge towards some of the pre-Christian beliefs. Even if Margaret Murray and Charles Leland were mistaken or practicing bad anthropology, the eclecticism of Neo-paganism has allowed the folk practices to continue through personal interpretation.

Guitar's Cry said:

....Hinduism has been referred to as pagan before, as has--interestingly enough--things like Judaism and Islam.

Some have referred to anything non-Abrahamic.

I personally use it as a term to refer to anything that puts a heavy emphasis on Nature, or puts emphasis on the more earthly qualities of human existence (including Asatru). I recognize that's broad and there are many exceptions, but it is simply a label that seems to work for me. Are Kemeticists (right term?) pagan? They are usually found in that category, and that's fine. Considering that the vernacular use of "Pagan" is including anything either polytheistic, nature-based, or magic-based, I think it works well enough to get along.

As for the roots of Neo-paganism, I would consider the influence of archetypal mythology (through Frazer, Jung, and Campbell) to build a bridge towards some of the pre-Christian beliefs. Even if Margaret Murray and Charles Leland were mistaken or practicing bad anthropology, the eclecticism of Neo-paganism has allowed the folk practices to continue through personal interpretation.

Click to expand...

Thank you for clarifying your position, and your personal lexicon. The latter isn't said as an insult, considering the vague term and multiple (and innaccruate) applications of the term.

For example, Asatru isn't a nature based relgiion, in my experiences, even if nature is recognized as a primal force. One worships Thor, for example, not the thunder.

We Gaels, however, allthough we do not worship nature itself, recognize it as an intregal part of OUR nature. Something shared among many shamanistic systems, such as that found among the 1st Nation's people here in the US. I prefer to address such systems as Animistic, a much more precice label if further clarification is called for.

But to use one all inclusive word is to suggest, not that the term refers to all individually, but collectively, (not and/or but exclusively and) so that it might be implied that those systems that do not include "magic" for example, do.

Yes, I realize it's splitting hairs, but some of us nAT's (non-Abrahamic Theists) do not believe in "magic".

Also, I have never read Jung, Campbell, or the other. My research, and indeed many of the Celtic Reconstuctionists, of which we Gaels is a part of, base our research excusively on the celebrations, rituals, stories, etc. themselves. Other than sharing our research with each other for knowledge and peer review, we simply don't bother with modern authors very much.

AxisMundi said:

Thank you for clarifying your position, and your personal lexicon. The latter isn't said as an insult, considering the vague term and multiple (and innaccruate) applications of the term.

Click to expand...

Sure, and none taken. I enjoy discussion as it helps to hammer out new positions.

AxisMundi said:

For example, Asatru isn't a nature based relgiion, in my experiences, even if nature is recognized as a primal force. One worships Thor, for example, not the thunder.

We Gaels, however, allthough we do not worship nature itself, recognize it as an intregal part of OUR nature. Something shared among many shamanistic systems, such as that found among the 1st Nation's people here in the US. I prefer to address such systems as Animistic, a much more precice label if further clarification is called for.

Click to expand...

Sure, I can see that. That's part of why I added "...or puts emphasis on the more earthly qualities of human existence." It's kind of the difference between practicing outside in the woods in simple, primitive, or garish garb (or naked ) and practicing in a church in a suit.

"Pagans," as I use the term, would tend to recognize those primal qualities in themselves more, and celebrate rather than attempt to exorcise it.

AxisMundi said:

But to use one all inclusive word is to suggest, not that the term refers to all individually, but collectively, (not and/or but exclusively and) so that it might be implied that those systems that do not include "magic" for example, do.

Yes, I realize it's splitting hairs, but some of us nAT's (non-Abrahamic Theists) do not believe in "magic".

Click to expand...

Magic is also one of those quirky, ambiguous terms that people tend to throw around without thinking. So I understand the split hair.

AxisMundi said:

Also, I have never read Jung, Campbell, or the other. My research, and indeed many of the Celtic Reconstuctionists, of which we Gaels is a part of, base our research excusively on the celebrations, rituals, stories, etc. themselves. Other than sharing our research with each other for knowledge and peer review, we simply don't bother with modern authors very much.

Click to expand...

That's cool. I certainly understand how a Reconstructionist's perspective would find the equation of classic Paganism with modern eclectic Neo-paganism...how do you personally see it anyway? I've unfortunately had some rather heated debates on the issue, in which "cultural rape and misappropriation" was thrown around.

I think my perspective is best summarized by Emerson in Nature:

Our age is retrospective. It builds the sepulchres of the fathers. It writes biographies, histories, and criticism. The foregoing generations beheld God and nature face to face; we, through their eyes. Why should not we also enjoy an original relation to the universe? Why should not we have a poetry and philosophy of insight and not of tradition, and a religion by revelation to us, and not the history of theirs? Embosomed for a season in nature, whose floods of life stream around and through us, and invite us by the powers they supply, to action proportioned to nature, why should we grope among the dry bones of the past, or put the living generation into masquerade out of its faded wardrobe? The sun shines to-day also. There is more wool and flax in the fields. There are new lands, new men, new thoughts. Let us demand our own works and laws and worship.

Click to expand...

This is in no way meant to suggest that I have a negative association historical perspectives, traditionalism, or Reconstructionism; quite the opposite. I recognize the power and inherent worth of it.

But being "Pagan" in this age for me is to recognize the primal nature in me and revel in it. I seek the traditions and history for those arts that speak to me through time and call me back to woods.

Pan's eyes are opening.

Oberon said:

This is a question for anybody (hence where I posted it), but I would love to hear from those who follow a path like druidism, asatru, wicca, etc. I haven't really met (even when I moved in pagan circles) that many people who weren't teens who believed that their religion was really "the old way" but rather that there were certain connections to whatever ancient pagan path they were reconstructing (? not sure if that's the right word). The question is, how much of the modern practice/beliefs are similar to the ancient ones?

Another example is druidry. While historians debate over just what we can know, there is general agreement that if we can know anything it is very little. There are just too few sources with too many issues. Yet the "druid movement" has a long history of its own going back centuries.

Basically, I'm interested in learning what people who follow neo-pagan paths think connects their tradition with the ancient one it is based on, how much is innovation, how much is in common, etc.

Click to expand...

As I've posted on other threads, my initial exposure to druidry came from my Welsh grandmother who was a WWII bride, and moved to the USA with her husband after the war. My people have been Druids for as long as I know of, and for me it is a family tradition as well as a path, a way of life, a religion, etc. Therefore it is difficult for me to really identify with being a 'Neo-pagan' in some ways.

However, the Order I joined (OBOD) is very eclectic and inclusive, which is one earmark of Neo-Paganism. It has connections with Wicca, which is a path that I don't identify with although many combine wicca with druidry effortlessly (and call it 'Druidcraft').

I made that decision deliberately, in part because one of the really important things my grandmother taught me (forgive me if you've read this in other posts on this board) was that Druidry is ancient, but also still alive. Any living ancient thing has learned well the art of adaptation to its changing environment; or it would not have been able to continue living and growing as its surroundings changed. Therefore, I combine my family tradition (called by my gran 'the Old Ways') of Druidry with the eclectic, progressive attitude of OBOD.

As far as historicity: I believe there is enough evidence to be confident that much of our mythology is intact. Hidden within the mythology lie keys of practice and ritual, herbs, animals, etc.

There are pools of illumination regarding the Druids, whom many historians have restored to our ancient Temple of Stonehenge, having realized the Celts arrived over a much longer period of time, gradually, rather than invading suddenly at the late date they had fixed. These Neolithic Druids are Proto-Druids; no written records exist because we had oral tradition (and still do), just as many tribes always have. I view this as a strength rather than a weakness, after studying journalism and the scriptures of other religions, and finding so many arguments and flaws and contradictions that will never be resolved.

Julius Caesar wrote of the Druids, their sophisticated system of government and areas of expertise, divided into Bards, Ovates, and Druids. He wrote of the length of years spent in schooling for each division; this and other Roman sources (for all their hostility, they still recorded genuine observations about the peoples they conquered) indicate a system long in place.

From here the Druids can be tracked for a while, until they faded into obscurity in the face of Christian persecution. They learned to blend in, preserving the old ways and the old myths under the guise of the new religion, trying to keep the peace. A lot of Druidry remains in Celtic Christianity, and the Bardic training schools were kept open when the Christians came in; they simply had to re-label everything to keep the Christians happy.

The Bards preserved our lore as it was meant to be preserved; the stories evolve with every re-telling, and that is part of the ancient yet still alive phenomenon. Christian monks eventually wrote down the tales of the Bards, preserving our mythology in the preferred Greco-Roman mode, in writing. The Triads were also preserved in writing long, long ago, as was the Ogham (tree alphabet) and so forth.

The Druid Revival occurred in the late 17th century and has persisted in some form to this day; my family is one branch of Druidry that does not consider itself "Neo", for all these reasons. I myself believe that both 'neo' and 'traditional' are vital elements to be treasured and blended.

I don't have sources and so forth to list for you; I am far too tired and weighed down with school work to find them unless I really must. But that is my two cents as a Druid according to my memory of what I've always been taught and also what I've recently been learning. Hope it helps!

Guitar's Cry said:

...."Pagans," as I use the term, would tend to recognize those primal qualities in themselves more, and celebrate rather than attempt to exorcise it......

Click to expand...

Well, we'll have to jovially agree to disagree, as I would use th term Animist.

Guitar's Cry said:

That's cool. I certainly understand how a Reconstructionist's perspective would find the equation of classic Paganism with modern eclectic Neo-paganism...how do you personally see it anyway? I've unfortunately had some rather heated debates on the issue, in which "cultural rape and misappropriation" was thrown around.

Click to expand...

If I understand your question correctly, and please feel free to clarify...

To be frank, I find "neo-paganism" to be little more than a "badnwagon" style of system. And yes, I know I will insult some, but the number of former neo-pagans I know, or those who merely drop the more flashy rituals and the idea of "magic" to search for more rational manners in which to worship their Deities seems to indicate this.

Guitar's Cry said:

Pan's eyes are opening.

Click to expand...

As are all the Elder Gods as te Abrahamics loose their stranglehold on western culture.

Thanks everybody for the replies.