A modern Pagan perspectivePosts RSS Comments RSS

Two Spiritual Worlds

The Minneapolis/St. Paul City Pages compares and contrasts the spiritual worlds of two musical artists, Daniel Smith and David Tibet. Both artists embrace some form of Christian thought but there the two figures wildly diverge.

“Cults, by definition, need not just a charismatic and enigmatic figurehead, but also a devoted legion of believers. Persistence pays off in getting the message out there; just look how long it took Jesus…Daniel Smith, who records as the Danielson Famile, Tri-Danielson, and just Danielson, kicked off his own cultdom with a Rutgers senior project-turned-debut album, A Prayer for Every Hour…Smith’s cult status has grown, even while he himself remains childish when addressing his Christian faith.”

While Daniel Smith approaches Christianity with a simple almost childlike temperament, David Tibet, while also singing about Christianity, does so from a very different perspective. Tibet’s faith is obsessed with eschatology, and is influenced by mysticism (this includes a long-running interest in Aleister Crowley, and Tibetan Buddhism).

“The central voice, of course, is that of Tibet, a portentous and feral device falling somewhere between Johnny Rotten’s mewl and the projection of a bit player in Macbeth. Tibet too, deals with occult forces, this mortal coil, Lazarus, and other lost deities as his band plies a strange and moldered strain of folk much like what might emanate out of Stonehenge or a witch’s cove.”

While some might say that this shows the elasticity of the Christian faith, I instead think it shows a pre-modern/post-modern split in thinking about religion. Smith’s faith is simple, direct, and exists as a lone truth. Tibet’s view is pluralistic and inclusive, willing to take inspiration from outside spiritual and mystic traditions, and open to working with wildly variant faith practitioners. It is the world of one truth versus the world of many truths; one is open to a world where modern Paganism exists and one (despite how “liberal” it becomes) is not.

3 responses so far

  • Thudfactor

    Actually, I think you’re going to have to trot out more evidence before you can make the claim that no matter how liberal Christianity may become, it can’t accept a modern world where paganism exists; I personally know many Christians (Methodist and Episcopalian) who are perfectly tolerant of pagans. Unitarian Christians are certainly open to the existence of modern paganism.That doesn’t mean they are likley to covert, and it certainly doesn’t mean they think our paganism is just as right as their Christianity, but I trust these Christians would have our backs in the face of a theocratic revolution; after all — Ron Luce doesn’t think they’re Christian either.

  • Hecate

    Some of my favorite friends are Episcopal monks from an abbey in Michigan. They send me rowan branches from their abbey for wands.

  • Jason

    I’m not dissing Christianity per se, nor am I saying that no Christian can be accepting of a Pagan. I’m saying that Christians who refuse to adapt their thinking to a post-modern religious reality (something Unitarian Christians certainly do) won’t in the end be able to accept Christian/Pagan co-existence.