The Big Tent of Paganism

January 11, 2015 By John Beckett

I like a “Big Tent” approach to Paganism. Druids and Wiccans, Heathens and Hellenists, Thelemites and chaos magicians, shamans and seers, kitchen witches and tree huggers – there’s room for everyone.

What do all these people have in common, you ask? Not a single thing.

But there’s still value in the Big Tent of Paganism.

Imagine, if you will, a huge circus tent. It’s supported by four large poles. These are the four centers of Paganism: Nature, the Gods, the Self, and Community. To continue the circus metaphor, these aren’t rings you’re either inside or outside of, these are poles you’re closer to or farther away from. Some Pagans are so close to one pole (center) they’re hugging them – they don’t care about the other three centers. Others are close to two or three or even all four centers.

I’m primarily a Nature and Deity centered Pagan. My love of hills and trees, the sun and the moon and the night sky, and my study of science brought me here. My experience of the Gods gives me depth and meaning. Read through this blog and you’ll see these are my primary concerns.

I have some interest in the Self – in refining my soul and improving my skills so as to be of greater service to the world. I have some interest in Community – in building vibrant groups and resilient institutions to support our Great Work. But while those are important, I don’t have the passion for them that I have for Nature and the Gods.

Now, imagine this tent has lots of people moving around in it. Some are crowded tightly around one pole. Others bounce from pole to pole to pole. Eventually, though, most people find a spot they’re comfortable with, and they discover they’re not alone – there are others who have the same interests and passions. Sometimes there’s already an organized tradition at that spot in the tent: say, Gardnerian Wicca or OBOD Druidry. Sometimes there’s an informal gathering, like traditional witchcraft. Other times there’s nothing and people decide to create a group, like the Coru Cathubodua priesthood of the Morrigan. And some people insist on standing by themselves.

The flaps of this tent are up – there’s nothing to stop people from wandering in and out. Some people find a gathering spot outside the tent. Green Christians have a lot in common with Nature centered Pagans, but they aren’t inside our tent. The Afro-Caribbean religions have varying degrees of Catholicism in them, but they’re generally considered to be in the tent. What about Hinduism? Some Hindus say they’re in, other Hindus insist they’re out.

There are no fences and there are no guards. If you want to come in, you can come in. If you want to go out, you can go out. I prefer the biggest of Big Tents, but ultimately each group and each individual has to decide if they’re Pagan or not.

“If a word doesn’t have a clear meaning then it doesn’t mean anything at all!” I hear this all the time and I strongly disagree – this argument is adolescent pedantry. Paganism can’t be precisely defined because it doesn’t have boundaries – you aren’t in or out. You’re closer to or farther from the four centers, and if you’re close enough to one or more of the centers to be inside the Big Tent, you’re a Pagan.

Our troubles with the term largely stem from the ideas that one tradition is normative of Paganism and that there are certain elements of belief and practice that are essential to Paganism. Neither of these assumptions are correct. Wiccan concepts and rituals are by far the most common, but all that means is that there are more people in the Wiccan area of the Big Tent.

When some polytheists insist “I’m not Pagan” what they’re usually saying is “my religion has nothing to do with the Wiccanish stuff all those folks are doing.” That’s true, but as I see it they’re standing right beside the pole labeled “Gods” and that puts them clearly inside the Big Tent.

The reality is that the volume of Paganism is at a high, vague, Wiccanish / witchcraft level. The depth is being developed at a very focused, very intense level. Interestingly, much of that is happening in witchcraft. The fact that many people are practicing at a superficial level doesn’t stop others from practicing that same tradition very deeply. It’s clear that as people settle into an area of the Big Tent, they soon find “Pagan” no longer completely describes what they do.

If a random person on the street asks me what I am, I may say I’m a Pagan. If someone at Pagan Pride Day asks, I’ll say I’m a Druid. If someone at a retreat asks, I’ll say I’m a polytheist Druid pledged to Cernunnos and Danu who worships many of the Celtic deities and occasionally others.

All of those labels are accurate and all are a helpful way to communicate, depending on the audience.

The Big Tent provides a visible, easy-to-find entry point for ordinary people who are looking for something their current religion isn’t providing. And it makes it much easier for us to find others inside the tent who are doing the same things for the same reasons.

There may be nothing that is common to 100% of Pagans, but we have plenty of similar interests. Almost all of us are concerned with promoting and protecting religious freedom and preventing the establishment of a majority religion. Many of us are concerned with respecting Nature and caring for the environment, whether or not we believe the Earth is the body of a Goddess. Many honor our ancestors, whether we pour libations to them or study their history or strive to live by their values.

Draw circles around our groups and no one circle will include us all, but there’s lots and lots of overlap in our beliefs, practices, interests, and concerns – enough overlap to create and support things like Pagan Pride Day, Pantheacon, Patheos Pagan, The Wild Hunt, and Pagan music. Individually, no one tradition is big enough to support these large endeavors. Together we can.

We are not one. There is no single Pagan religion and I have no desire to create one. But the Big Tent of Paganism is a useful and beneficial approach to grow and support our many Pagan religions.

Does Magic Undermine the Sovereignty of Nature?

December 1, 2014 By John Beckett

Over on Humanistic Paganism, John Halstead has a piece on magic titled ‘Goats’ Heads or Gaia?’: Instrumental Magic and Pagan Values. It draws on several well-respected sources in both Paganism and the social sciences to make the case that magic is “sloppy reasoning and wishful thinking.”

Let me start by saying I like John Halstead. He’s intelligent, articulate, and his analysis is insightful. One of his blog posts led to the Four Centers of Paganism, which is the best working model of the modern Pagan movement I’ve found. Despite his tendency to rub people the wrong way, he really is a nice person, and I’m happy to have him speaking for the non-theistic wing of our Big Tent of Paganism.

But I’ve got a few problems with this essay, problems that go beyond our differing assumptions about the nature of the Gods and the universe.

A definition of magic

I like to start with Aleister Crowley’s classic definition of magic: “the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.” I see three different but interrelated types of magic: the manipulation of unseen forces, the intercession of Gods and spirits, and psychological programming. Within these three realms we find various expressions of magic such as folk magic, divination, ceremonial magic, chaos magic, bardic magic, and many others. This is a loose definition, but keep it in mind as you read on.

Instrumental magic

John Halstead draws on the work of anthropologist Tanya Luhrmann for his definition of instrumental magic. There are two fundamental premises:

1. That human will power is a real force, that alone, when concentrated, can effect supernatural changes in the material world.

2. That the universe is tied together by a system of hidden correspondences – analogous to, but distinct from, the natural laws recognized by scientists – and that by discovering the pattern of these correspondences magicians can effect supernatural changes in the material world.

That matches up well with one part of the three-fold definition: the manipulation of unseen forces.

Halstead simply dismisses this as escapism and wishful thinking. On one level I get it – if you’re a humanist, a naturalist, a non-theist, then the manipulation of unseen forces simply isn’t part of your worldview. It’s not possible, end of story. And he says:

The biggest problem with instrumental magic, as I see it, is that it tries to play on science’s turf. It pretends to be a science and a technology, and ends up just looking silly and impotent.

He’s got a valid point here. I see a lot of people (more New Agers than Pagans, but too many Pagans in any case) who claim science “proves” this or that supernatural theory, when it does nothing of the sort. Bad science makes bad religion, and bad science gets in the way of performing effective magic.

But to simply dismiss instrumental magic ignores one huge fact: sometimes it works. I don’t do a lot of spell work, but I’ve had enough success that if I have a need I won’t hesitate to light a candle or stir a cauldron. Magic clearly does not work as it’s portrayed in fiction, but it works often enough I’m convinced that chaos magicians have the right idea: successful magic moves the odds in your favor.

Magic and respect for Nature

So far all we’ve got is a difference in foundational assumptions about the way the universe works and a difference in experiences of magic. But then John gets to the main point of his essay, and that’s where I we have more than a difference of opinion. He says:

According to [ecologist Trudy] Frisk, the instrumental view of magic “perpetuates the utilitarian view of nature. Expecting natural objects to fulfill human desires leads to disregard for maintaining nature in all its complexity.” This causes Frisk to wonder how Paganism really differs from monotheistic religions which encourage human dominion over nature.

Going from spell casting to dominion over Nature is a huge leap unsupported by either logic or observation. Go back to the definition of magic – it’s a way of getting things done. It’s a set of operational skills and techniques.

Magic is a tool, much like a hammer or a screwdriver or an iPad. Do we disregard the sovereignty of Nature when we use hammers and saws to build shelter from the elements? Do we attempt to claim dominion over Nature when we build fires (in a fireplace or in a gas furnace) to keep warm in winter? No – magic is no different than any other tool.

If anything, instrumental magic reminds magicians of their place in the grand scheme of things. Work a spell to stop a hurricane and you’ll see just how powerful you really are compared to Nature. Work a spell to make water flow uphill and you’ll quickly learn the difference between “moving the odds in your favor” and “violating the laws of Nature.”

Consciousness changing magic

John doesn’t dismiss magic entirely. He says:

Dion Fortune defined magic as the “art of changing consciousness at will”. By dropping the word “science” and adding the word “consciousness”, Fortune suggested the possibility of a different, non-instrumental view of magic. Non-instrumental magic can be understood as a psychological technique for changing ourselves in relation to the natural world.

This is very similar to the third type of magic – psychological programming. Lon Milo DuQuette says “It’s All In Your Head … You Just Have No Idea How Big Your Head Is.” I don’t agree that it’s all in your head, but certainly a good bit of it is. Change your thinking and you can change your life, even if you can’t violate the laws of Nature in the process.

But though he admits it’s real, John seems to be rejecting this magic as well.

from the perspective of the non-instrumental theory of magic, control is understood to be an illusion – whether we are speaking about the control of physical nature or control of the unconscious. Attempts to control either our “inner” nature or “outer” nature have a tendency to backfire. Depth psychology has taught us about the dangers of psychological “control” or repression. That which we believe we have controlled tends to find a way back into our lives.

So non-instrumental magic works but it’s too dangerous to use? There is truth in that, but some of us have decided it’s worth the risk. Witchcraft is dangerous. Dealing with the Gods is dangerous. Initiation is dangerous. In the words of Sharon Knight “there’s some wake mad, and some wake dead, and some will rise with a fire in their head.”

I won’t take others up that mountain unless I think they can handle it, and unless I’m sure they understand the risks. But anything worthwhile is dangerous. And desperate circumstances call for desperate measures. To dismiss psychological magic as too dangerous is to underestimate our resilience and our capacity for learning and growth.

Magic aligns us with Nature

John Halstead sees one positive use for magic – aligning us with Nature. He says:

we should try to learn about the pattern nature is weaving, and attune ourselves to it, before trying to alter the pattern. As I understand it, this attunement is precisely the purpose of earth-centered Pagan ritual: attunement with nature, attunement with our deeper selves, and attunement with one another.

Though I think perhaps he’s conflating magic and ritual a bit too much (there’s a lot of overlap, but they aren’t the same thing), I’m in strong agreement with the thought expressed. We absolutely should learn the pattern Nature is weaving and align ourselves with it. Magic works best when we swim with the currents of Nature and not against them. All those hours witches and other magic users spend learning correspondences and watching the sky and searching for hard-to-find plants teach us who and what Nature is and how she works, subtly if not directly.

Magic is not the best way to align ourselves with Nature. The best way is to make a conscious commitment to Nature: to study Nature, to form relationships with all her creatures, and most importantly, to revere Nature as our Great Mother. But magic – including instrumental magic – can help us draw closer to Nature.

Magic: a heritage and a calling

The practice of magic is part of our heritage. We see it in the stories of our ancestors. We see it in the folk practices that survived into modern times. We see it in the transformative work of initiatory orders. We even see it in our sporting events.

For John Halstead, becoming a Pagan was “a paradigm shift.” He says:

I no longer wanted to escape this world. Instead, I wanted to experience it more fully. I wanted to live more intensely, with all of my senses, to feel more alive, more vital.

I think most of us who have felt the call of Pagan ways – through any of the four centers – can relate to that desire. And we understand that for some, magic is simply too big of a paradigm shift to accept.

But for many of us, that intensity and that vitality are strengthened and energized through the diligent practice of magic.

Showing Up

July 1, 2014 By John Beckett

Nicea — *The Council of Nicaea* – photo via Wikimedia Commons

Decisions are made by those who show up.

Every time I compare the running debates on the Pagan internet to the Council of Nicaea I get pushback. Some of this is understandable. The Council of Nicaea was one of the most important events in the establishment of Christianity as the dominant religion of Europe and its output has helped define Christian orthodoxy for over 1600 years. It is no surprise that Pagans – many of whom left Christianity under unpleasant circumstances – have no desire to emulate Christian institutions and processes.

The comparison is not perfect. We Pagans have no imperial mandate, we have no fixed agenda, we will issue no creeds and we will canonize no scriptures. The outcome of our debates will be many varieties of Pagan belief and practice, not one catholic (i.e. – universal) Paganism.

But there is an important lesson to be learned from the Council of Nicaea, so please bear with me while I summarize what happened.

In 325 CE the Roman Emperor Constantine sent out a call for all Christian bishops to participate in a council to settle various disagreements within the still-new Christian church – the nature of the relationship between the Father and the Son and the date of Easter being the most prominent. The precise agenda isn’t relevant to the modern Pagan comparison.

What’s relevant is that 1800 bishops were invited to participate in the council. 300 showed up. Those 300 bishops made decisions that are still in effect today.

What would the Council of Nicaea been like if the other 1500 bishops had attended? What would it have done differently if ordinary priests had also been invited, or lay Christians?

The orthodox Christian position is that the Council was guided by the Holy Spirit and thus would have reached the same conclusions no matter who was involved. Perhaps. Others say those 300 bishops were a representative sample of Christian thought at the time and thus reached the same conclusions as if Constantine had polled all of Christendom. Perhaps. Still others argue that those who made the long and difficult journey to Nicaea (in what is now northern Turkey) were the most invested and most passionate and therefore would have carried the argument no matter who attended. Perhaps.

What would the Council of Nicaea been like if more than 300 bishops had participated? We’ll never know. Here’s what we do know: major decisions were made by those who showed up.

We can debate when modern Pagan religion began, but such a debate is impossible to settle. What’s important for our purposes is that modern Pagan religion is a new religion. We’re still figuring out what we want to be when we grow up. Even if we work within the Four Centers model, there is little agreement as to what constitutes Nature-centered, Deity-centered, Self-centered, and Community-centered religion. To use a biological comparison, we are in the middle (or perhaps even the beginning) of an evolutionary explosion where many species arise. Over time, the less fit variations will die off and the more fit variations will continue.

The first phase of modern Paganism spread by direct personal contact, through one on one teaching and initiation. The second phase spread by books, with writers like Starhawk, Margot Adler, and Scott Cunningham making the rise of solitary practitioners possible. The current phase of Paganism is being spread by the internet and while some voices are louder than others, anyone with a computer and some basic writing skills can contribute to the discussion.

Jason Mankey argues that Pagan bloggers have little influence because our readership is so low. He’s right, if you’re talking about any one individual. But ideas spread through social media, and those that are particularly helpful (or sadly, particularly controversial) can quickly find their way to thousands of Pagans worldwide.

Who are the Gods? What are the Gods? How can we best interact with Them? Why do we want to interact with Them?

What are Pagan values and virtues? How can we best embody them in a society that seems interested only in the next shiny new distraction?

What are our obligations to Nature? What are our obligations to other humans and other species?

How can we best learn and grow ourselves?

What stories best help us live full and honorable lives?

These are some of the many questions any religion must answer. What answers will Pagans propose? What answers will Pagans find helpful? What answers will Pagans discard?

Every generation builds on the foundations laid by the previous generation. I look at my bookshelf and I see Isaac Bonewits, Philip Carr-Gomm, and Ronald Hutton. I see Thorn Coyle and Brendan Myers. These and many others have influenced my Paganism – my practice starts here.

What will the Pagans of 2050 use as a starting point? The Pagans of 2100? The Pagans of centuries and millennia to come?

I don’t know.

What I do know is that our conversations are shaping the future of Paganism. Slowly, incrementally, by trial and error, by consensus and by strength of will, decisions are being made and they’re being made by those who participate in the discussions.

Decisions are made by those who show up.

You say you don’t like theology? That’s fine – we’re also trying to figure out which holidays to celebrate and how to celebrate them. We’re trying to figure out which spiritual practices draw us closer to the Gods, to each other, and to our better selves… and we’re trying to figure out which practices are a colossal waste of time. We’re trying to figure out what our pre-Christian ancestors really thought and did, and how much of that we should adopt into our lives.

Decisions are being made by those who show up.

You prefer a this-world, this-life religion? We’re trying to decide how we can best change the world through mainstream politics… or if we should participate in politics at all. We’re trying to figure out where direct personal action is needed. We’re trying to decide what our obligations are to other people, other species, and other ecosystems, and how we can best fulfill those obligations.

Decisions are being made by those who show up.

You couldn’t participate in all these discussions even if you wanted to – you’d spend all your time debating and have nothing left for doing, for actually being a Pagan. That’s why my favorite blogs (see the blogroll on the right) are mostly written by people who aren’t just talking Paganism, they’re doing Paganism.

These are some of the people who are showing up. They’re showing up to do the work and then they’re showing up to tell the rest of us what they’ve done and how well it worked.

What an amazing opportunity we have. What an awesome responsibility we have.

You don’t have to participate, but remember those 1500 bishops who stayed home. Decisions are made by those who show up.

Why I Am a Devotional Polytheist

February 4, 2014 By John Beckett

I have mixed feelings about the current arguments around the definition of “polytheist.”

As a Big Tent Pagan – and as a Unitarian Universalist – I don’t much care what the person standing next to me in the circle believes about the Gods. I care that they honor the Gods, but whether they honor Them as distinct individual beings or as aspects of the Divine or as representations of natural forces or as metaphors and archetypes isn’t really my concern. Make your offerings and embody Their virtues as you go about your business.

On the other hand, I care very much what I believe about the Gods. I interpret my experiences through my beliefs, and my practices are designed to reinforce my beliefs and thus facilitate further religious experiences. The better my thoughts about the Gods align with the way I experience Them, the better I can connect with Them, the better I can understand Them, and the better I can carry out the work They have asked me to do in this world. So I’m constantly reading other people’s ideas about polytheism, comparing and contrasting them with my own ideas, seeing what reinforces my beliefs and what challenges me to think a little deeper or in a slightly different direction.

But not all approaches to polytheism are helpful to me.

I have great respect for John Halstead – the work he did identifying the Four Centers of Paganism has been invaluable to me. But his ideas on Jungian Polytheism bear little resemblance to my experiences, so they aren’t helpful in refining my beliefs. I have great respect for Alison Lilly – her animistic polytheism is intellectually sound. But it wasn’t the mountains or the mist who overshadowed me, who occupied my body and my mind – it was Cernunnos. Alison’s ideas, while thought-provoking, do not help me deepen my bond with Him.

Notice I didn’t say John and Alison are wrong – they aren’t. Their experiences of the Gods are different from mine, therefore their beliefs about the Gods are also different. Who’s right? Ultimately, no one can say with certainty. My calling isn’t to convince everyone my view of the Gods is correct. My calling is to bear witness to my experience of the Gods and to maintain reciprocal relationships with Them.

I grew up with a fairly traditional Evangelical Protestant view of God as the stern father in the sky. When I could no longer accept what I had been taught, my beliefs morphed into a sort of vague deism. When I started exploring Paganism, this background was a major hindrance. The Goddess I was introduced to via Wicca made sense intuitively, but that required me to back away from my vague deism. That in turn required me to rethink my concept of God, which proved very easy intellectually and very hard emotionally. The concept of the stern father in the sky had been burned into my brain as a small child and reimagining it was very difficult.

And what was I supposed to do with all these pantheons of Goddesses and Gods from Greece and Rome and Egypt and Ireland and everywhere else around the world? It’s no wonder my Pagan practice went nowhere for years.

The story of how I finally started going somewhere is here. Go read it if you like – what’s important for this matter is that I did overcome my theological impasse.

When Denton CUUPS was preparing for our first Egyptian Summer Solstice ritual, we were determined to do it right. We drew heavily from descriptions of daily temple rituals in the Coffin Texts, the Pyramid Texts, and the Book of Going Forth by Day. In preparation for the ritual, we held a series of meditations on the Ennead – one God or Goddess each night for nine nights.

Although I used the same basic approach in each meditation, my experiences were very different from deity to deity. This was perhaps most noticeable when I communed with Isis and Set on consecutive nights. If you’ve read anything about Them and Their stories, this will not be a surprise.

*Horus and Set battle for the Throne of Egypt while Isis looks on. Osiris and Thoth are on the far left and right, respectively. From Denton CUUPS 2009 Egyptian Summer Solstice.*

Much of the material I was studying at the time was still Wiccanish and duotheistic, so I didn’t change my overall view of the Gods. But the experience stayed with me – and it was repeated whenever I meditated on individual deities from any culture. Encountering different deities always produced different experiences.

John Michael Greer’s A World Full of Gods gave me a reasoned interpretation of those experiences. Here’s a quote from my short review:

Greer’s main argument is that the world-wide diversity of religious experience is prima facie evidence of the diversity of the Divine. In deep religious experience, some people experience Unity. Others experience a Mother Goddess or a Father God. Still others experience their ancestors or a personification of a natural force. As Greer says, “Religious experiences, taken at face value, support the hypothesis that many gods exist.”

What I experienced in meditation was turned up by a factor of ten when I participated in direct communion with Cernunnos. This wasn’t a general feeling or an involuntary visualization or a voice in the back of my head. This was the real and distinct presence of a divine being in me. I didn’t lose self-awareness like some accounts I’ve read of divine possession, but I clearly had another awareness and another will in me.

I’ve had moments of Unity, mystical experiences found in virtually every religious tradition in the world. This wasn’t that. That (Unity) was me dissolving into the Universe. This (Cernunnos) was me overshadowed by another individual being. The two experiences have some similarities but they were more different than alike, both while they were happening and later when I tried to interpret them.

If there was any doubt as to how I should understand the Gods, it ended when I began to interact with Morrigan.

We had honored Morrigan as Lady of Sovereignty in several rituals over the years with little feedback. We invited, She showed up, we made offerings, She gave a vague blessing, we said thanks, She left. And then one day I had a friend in danger in another state. The friend needed help – I couldn’t do anything directly. I asked Morrigan for help – help came. A few weeks later, a similar situation played out similarly – I asked, Morrigan granted.

When I made a third request, Morrigan said “I have done this for you, now I want you to do something for me.” That began a 2½ year relationship that has included multiple blog posts, an initiation, a devotional ritual, a Sunday sermon in a UU church, and a dramatic ritual telling of Her stories.

Morrigan has been mostly quiet in my life since last Beltane (and in some others’ lives as well, if the drop in internet traffic is any indication). I’m currently in deep devotional work with another Goddess, but I’m wondering what will happen when I meet with some of Morrigan’s priests at Pantheacon…

I experienced the Egyptian gods in meditation while preparing for a ritual in Their honor. I experienced Cernunnos in direct communion. I experienced Morrigan in Her response to prayers and offerings.

Experience. Experience. Experience.

My beliefs about the Gods flow from my experience of the Gods. Of the various conceptions of the Gods currently being discussed and practiced within modern Paganism, devotional polytheism best matches my experience. John Michael Greer’s book provides a philosophical grounding and a jumping off point for further philosophical and theological exploration. The work of other devotional polytheists gives me more points for comparison and contrast… and, I trust, I provide that for them.

And so I meditate, pray, and make offerings. I study the history of my Gods and how They were worshipped by our ancestors. I tell Their stories and lead rituals in Their honor. I listen for Their wisdom and Their instructions, and I do my best to act accordingly. And I see Them as real, distinct, individual beings with Their own areas of interest and responsibility, Their own hopes and dreams and goals, and Their own sovereignty and agency.

I am a devotional polytheist because I have experienced Gods who are real, distinct, and individual.

Live, Local, and Low Cost

January 26, 2014 By John Beckett

Melting POT 2014 05 — *Burroughs Park – Tomball, Texas*

At a time when various groups of Pagans can’t seem to get along on-line, a collection of 89 folks representing 25 groups and multiple traditions came together in a Houston area park to share conversation, food and good will.

Whether the Gods or Nature smiled on us or if we just got lucky, the weather was beautiful. It was sunny with temperatures in the mid 50s – one day after Houston made news shutting down because of snow and ice, and three days before wintry weather is in the forecast again. In any case, it was a great day for an outdoor gathering in January.

The event was organized by The Melting POT – Pagans of Texas, an informally gathered association of Pagans in the Southeast Texas area. Their mission statement says their goal is “to provide growth within the community and to try and bridge the gap between our cities.”

I can’t speak for Southeast Texas (the Houston area), but I know first-hand that while there are far more Pagans in North Texas (the Dallas – Fort Worth area) than you’d think, we are very isolated. Most groups are small and organized around one or two leaders and even the leaders rarely talk to leaders of other groups, if they even know each other. We had a great turnout at this year’s Pagan Pride Day, but Pagan Pride Day is a major production with a public-facing purpose and requiring months of preparation.

This gathering was small, informal, and perhaps most important, cheap. Meical ab Awen said they spent a total of $15. It helped that the park pavilion could be reserved for free, and individuals spent some money on food to bring. But there was no need for fundraisers or for organizers to dip deeply into their own pockets.

Sam Herren, from a local Heathen group, gave a very good introduction to divination with runes. An experienced Witch gave a talk on Traditional Witchcraft and emphasized that while his tradition has no complaints with Wicca, it is something different from Wicca. I spoke on the Four Centers of Paganism, the first time I’ve given this particular presentation (but not the last). The Spiral Scouts had a tent and provided activities for the kids.

Melting POT 2014 06 — *event co-founder Meical ab Awen*

There was a belly dance class and a chant workshop that I missed (not that I’m likely to take up belly dancing any time soon!) because I was talking to Pagans I either had never met or only knew on-line.

And that was the best part of the gathering. Friendships were formed and strengthened. Names and pictures now have live faces and real voices to go with them. Some folks whose only knowledge of Paganism came from books heard from a Heathen, a Witch, and a Druid, all experienced practitioners in their traditions.

Much like the Pagan Tea Time promoted by Christine Kraemer here on the Patheos Pagan Channel, this event let folks get past the limitations of blogging and commenting and get to know each other in a real live conversation. It was a great afternoon and well worth the drive down from North Texas. The organizers hope the success of this event inspires other Pagans in other cities to host their own low cost, informal, live gatherings.

Thanks to Cathy for taking pictures and to Denton CUUPS Education Officer Michi Harper for making the trip with us and representing North Texas Pagans.

Pagan Unity

December 15, 2013 By John Beckett

I hadn’t intended to write on Pagan unity – or the lack thereof – any time soon. But I’ve seen a lot of chatter on the topic in the past week – it seems like the time to chime in.

I’m not going to link to a bunch of people on this, mainly because I don’t want to take the time to look up quotes. Suffice it to say the complaints fall into two main categories.

1) Someone attempts to define Paganism and someone else complains “your definition excludes me.”

2) Someone assumes a definition of Paganism, decides he or she is sufficiently different, then proclaims “I’m not Pagan.”

Let’s start with a couple of basic principles. First, every person has the right to choose his or her own identity and his or her own labels. If you want to call yourself a Pagan, a polytheist, a Druid, a Nature worshipper, an occultist, whatever, that’s your business. Further, every person has the right to choose who he or she will associate with. If the fine points of your religion are so critical you must set yourself apart from this group or that group, again, that’s your business.

Next, Paganism does not have a definition. Institutions have definitions and boundaries. Paganism is not an institution, it’s a movement. Movements have centers. The Pagan movement has four centers: Nature, the Gods, the Self, and Community. I’m primarily a Nature-centered and Deity-centered Pagan. The Self and Community are also important to me, but to a lesser degree. Many who identify as polytheists are primarily Deity-centered and Community-centered. Humanistic Pagans may be more Nature-centered and Self-centered.

I prefer a Big Tent approach to Paganism – a big tent with four main posts. Some of us are right in the middle, some cling tightly to only one post, while others are in one of the corners. Some people are close enough for me to see them but not close enough for me to tell if they’re actually under the tent or if they’re standing outside. What about Green Christians? I think they’re outside, but their fundamentalist brethren over in the next camp think they’re standing right in the middle of us. What about the Kabbalists? I think they’re in, but many of them say they’re only in the Jewish tent. The Hindus are over in that corner – some of them are insistent they’re in our tent and others are just as insistent they’re not.

Complicated? Yep. Messy? Sure is. Living, growing, reproducing organisms are like that.

The problem with big tents is, well, they’re big. Try to embrace the whole tent and you can find yourself bouncing back and forth between pouring libations to Zeus, protesting fracking, organizing the Beltane picnic and meditating on The Fool. Those are all worthwhile things to do, but they can lead to a personal religion that is the proverbial mile wide and an inch deep. That’s a problem – if you’ve been reading Under the Ancient Oaks for any time at all you know one of my favorite soapboxes is the need for spiritual depth.

This isn’t just a problem for individuals – it’s also a problem for Pagan religions. I think we pretty much agree that while we are inspired by our ancient ancestors, what we’re doing right now is new. It’s a response to our circumstances, our problems, and our needs. It may be more than that – perhaps much more – but it’s at least that. We’re trying to figure out how best to respond to the religious impulses and calls we feel, and we’re responding in different ways.

Our spiritual growth is coming through depth, not through breadth. It isn’t coming through “Paganism” – it’s coming through witchcraft and Druidry and Heathenry and ceremonial magic and Dark Green Religion. All the folks who are saying “I’m really more of a <fill in the blank>” are absolutely right.

If that was all there was to it we could forget the Pagan label. But it isn’t, so we can’t.

What we offer – through all four centers of Paganism – is something many people need and want. Separately, none of us have a strong enough signal to get through the noise of the dominant religion and the dominant culture. Together, though, we have a fighting chance.

I can’t think of a better example than the Pagan Channel here at Patheos. Among the regular bloggers we have a Wiccan, a Druid, a Voodoo priestess, and a Humanistic Pagan. Do we have some commonalities? Of course we do. Do we have some differences? Absolutely. Would I feel comfortable at one of the other folk’s rituals? Probably. Would I want to do their version of ritual all the time? Absolutely not.

Here’s the thing: Patheos isn’t going to invest the resources to create a Druid channel and a Wiccan channel and a Voodoo channel – there isn’t enough traffic to justify it. But together, we’ve got a nice home – and on the front page, we get equal billing with the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Muslims and everyone else.

This isn’t about persuading Evangelicals and Catholics and Muslims to like us or screaming that we’re as good as they are – that’s a fool’s errand. This is about showing religious seekers that they have options beyond Evangelicals and Catholics and Muslims.

Maybe they find the Pagan channel. Maybe they find Pagan Pride Day. Maybe they find the Covenant of UU Pagans. Some will learn a thing or two and move on to something else. But others will stick around. Eventually, they’ll find their way to one variant of Paganism or another and start digging deeper. But they can only do that if we have a strong enough signal for them to find us.

Boosting our signal requires growth in numbers as well as in spiritual depth. I want the Humanistic Pagans in our tent and not in the atheist tent ridiculing all religion. I want the Nature lovers in our tent recognizing the inherent worth of Nature and not in the Christian tent talking about the value of Nature coming from the god they think made it. I want the polytheists (and I count myself among them) in the big Pagan tent and not in their own tent that’s so small it can’t be found.

Ultimately, what tent you choose is up to you. But just because “Pagan” isn’t your primary identity doesn’t mean there’s not a place for you in the Big Tent of Paganism.

Pagan unity isn’t about forgetting our philosophical and theological differences and doing the same Wicca Lite ritual on the Solstice. Pagan unity is about working together respectfully to advance our common interests and boost our common signal while we explore our individual traditions in depth.

Magical Literacy

December 1, 2013 By John Beckett

Ivo_June2010doversm — *Ivo Dominguez Jr.*

The always insightful Ivo Dominguez Jr. has an essay on PaganSquare titled Paging Thoth & Athena, where he discusses what he calls the lack of magical literacy and numeracy. Ivo says:

there is an increasing percentage of the Pagan community that is magickally illiterate and innumerate. I’m not saying that people are less serious, less devoted, or less committed to their path. Nor am I saying that the level of discourse has dropped, in fact in many ways it is much more sophisticated in exploring the development of Pagan culture. What I have noticed is that the technical end of things, magick theory, sacred sciences, and the like, are less well known. I’ve also noticed a trend towards focusing more exclusively on the lore and mythology of a specific people or a specific time at the expense of a generalized understanding of how magickal paths manifest in a variety of cultures and communities.

The essay has generated an unusual number of comments, both on the original post and on an excerpt on the Wild Hunt. The bulk of those comments argue that since their particular flavor of Paganism doesn’t put much value in magic, Ivo’s observations are either wrong or irrelevant.

I get that. I’m primarily a Nature-centered and deity-centered Pagan. Magic is a part of my practice, but it’s not my primary focus. Still, I think the complaints miss the point. Ivo’s observations are accurate. I’m seeing that in my own group, where there’ve been requests for classes on the deeper study of magic early next year.

I think it’s worth considering how we might benefit from a better understanding of magic and from a more balanced approach to the Four Centers of Paganism. If you give it some thought and decide, no, you really aren’t interested in magic, so be it – I’ll see you at the roadside trash pickup.

For everyone else, read on…

If we would become magically literate we have to understand what magic is and what it isn’t. This is difficult, due in large part to our great diversity. As Ivo says:

There are so many different approaches, schools, and systems that it becomes almost impossible for any one individual to have time to truly become conversant in more than a small sector of what is available.

Ivo is right, but we have to start somewhere. I like to start with Aleister Crowley’s classic definition of magic: “the Science and Art of causing Change to occur in conformity with Will.”

That’s a pretty wide-open definition, but the capital letters show what’s important. Magic is a Science – a systematic study of a particular area of the natural world. Magic is an Art – it is an expressive act of imagination. That magic is both a Science and an Art is important – it is a holistic endeavor, encompassing the left brain and the right brain, the intellect and the emotions, logos and mythos. If your magic is strictly Science or strictly Art, it is less powerful, less effective, and less complete than it could be.

Magic produces Change – something or someone will be different because of the magical working. Some people edit Crowley’s definition to read “change in consciousness” instead of simply “Change.” I use that revised version myself on occasion – it provides an acceptable explanation for our overly skeptical materialistic society. But a change in consciousness is only an intermediate step toward Change in the wider world.

Finally, magic is done in accordance with Will. In the words of Isaac Bonewits “do as you Will, not do as you whim.” Will, your True Will, isn’t what you think you want and it’s certainly not what you think you’re supposed to want based on what you saw on TV last night. True Will is your reason for being in this world, what you need to accomplish while you’re here. Discerning your Will is a major undertaking in and of itself, particularly in our wide open society where there are countless options.

Ironically, this is one place where I find myself in agreement with Evangelical author and megachurch pastor Rick Warren: it’s not about you. Discerning your True Will and working magic to implement it will make you stronger, wiser, and happier, but that’s not the ultimate reason for doing it. The ultimate reason for doing it is to empower you to live in harmony with the Earth and its creatures and to make the world a better place for all. This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t do magic for your own needs – if I have a need I can’t meet through ordinary efforts, you better believe I’m going to work magic for it. Improving yourself is an intermediate goal, not the final goal and certainly not the only goal.

While we’re talking about the definition of magic, let’s also look at the definition of superstition. A lot of dictionary and textbook definitions of superstition are culturally biased: they describe faith, magic, luck and such as irrational beliefs. A more precise definition of superstition is simply “a misapplication of cause and effect.” Superstition is believing X causes Y, when in reality A, B, C, R, S, and sometimes T cause Y. Finding the proper cause to bring about the desired effect is part of the Science of magic.

That’s my working definition of magic, but we still haven’t moved very far toward the magical literacy and numeracy Ivo was talking about. In detailing what we need to learn, he says:

magickal literacy and numeracy involves an understanding of symbols (the equivalent of letters, numbers, etc.) and of grammar and rules of operation for the manipulation and measurement of subtle forces. Magickal literacy and numeracy also means that a person has a way to read, to reason, to understand, and to make comparisons between magickal concepts, practices, and experiences. Integral to this is the capacity to analyze and to quantify what works, what doesn’t work, and why in rituals, operative magic, divination, and other similar practices.

Some traditions lend themselves more easily to a formal literacy and numeracy. If you’re working within a Qabalistic-influenced tradition there’s a whole host of terms, concepts, and calculations you need to understand.

Druidry is more story-based. We know virtually nothing about the magic of the ancient Druids – we know much more about their role as Bards. I just searched my notes from my OBOD coursework (not the Gwersi themselves, which I have only in printed form, but the Word documents where I kept my notes as I was working through the lessons). The word “magic” appears only four times in my Bardic notes, three times in my Ovate notes, and five times in my Druid notes. Druid magic tends to be more subtle magic.

Isaac Bonewits CUUPS Convo 2004 — *Isaac Bonewits at the 2004 CUUPS Convocation*

However, Isaac Bonewits, one of the greatest Druids of our time and founder of ADF – and the only person ever awarded a degree in Magic by the University of California – wrote several books on magic. At the top of that list is Real Magic (1971), which I’ve found to be the best practical guide to magical theory around. As with so much of my religious and spiritual practice, my views of magic are heavily influenced by Isaac.

Isaac’s Laws of Magic were written as a guide for early fantasy role playing games, but in the fine Druid tradition of revealing the mysteries while concealing them, they’re a very accurate description of the ways in which magic works. If you want to increase your magical literacy, you could do far worse than committing Isaac’s laws to memory and contemplating their implications and interactions.

Pick up any Wicca 101 book and you’ll find lists and tables of correspondences. Herbs, stones, planets, elements, colors, seasons, times of day, and on and on – what goes with what. I learned a good many of these when I was first starting out. As with so much else we learn, what I used I remembered and what I didn’t I forgot. But if I’m doing something important (and if you’re working magic for it, how can it not be important?) I want all the help I can get.

Everything I’ve read and seen and experienced says we don’t live in a deterministic universe – we live in a probabilistic universe. Every correspondence you add to your spell shifts the odds just a little bit more in your favor. If you don’t know the correspondences, or at least know that you need to go look them up, your magical workings are going to be less effective than they could be.

Ivo intended his post to be “the start of a conversation around these issues.” I don’t know that I’ve advanced the conversation so much as extended it into another corner of the Big Tent of Paganism. I’ll be eager to see what more Ivo has to say on this matter, and I’ll be giving some serious thought to it as well.

If you aren’t interested in magic, go back to communing with Nature and honoring the gods. I’ll join you shortly – that’s where my primary emphasis lies. But magic is a part of my practice and I want that practice to be as effective as it can be.

Note: Ivo Dominguez Jr. spells it “magick” and I spell it “magic.” Ivo knows a ton more about the topic than I do, but “magick” doesn’t look right to me so I don’t use it. However, I have no passion around the spelling and I have no interest in debating which one is right.