Christo-Paganism. Yay or Nay?

[RecycledBenedict]

As I mentioned before, I am interested in Christo-Paganism. Mostly the idea that God-the-Father has a wife.

I have read about, and from what I can tell, the main beef Christians have with it is the polytheism, which mostly seems to be a matter of the Christianity that survived. Old Goddess cults back in the days of Jesus, you know.

That timeline doesn't work. YHWH was believed to have a wife - Ashera - in the centuries before 600 BCE. In the end of that century, king Josiah quite violently abolished the cult of Ashera. Traces of Ashera devotion are found for a few generations after that, especially among Jews living in Egypt (together with worship of the god Betel), but at the time of Jesus, Judaism had become monotheistic.

Monotheism does not exclude speculations about intra-divine processes, attributes or hypostases: Since the 7th century BCE speculations about the divine attribute Wisdom, expressed in female categories, is a part of Judaism (and within Christianity from the beginning). The Christian speculation about the Holy Trinity is similar. So are the Jewish concept of a Bat Qol, Philo's speculation about a divine Logos (later received into the theology of the Gospel of St. John) and the kabbalistic idea of ten sephiroth. It would be a stretch of language to call anyone of these divine hypostases a 'goddess'.

But I digress, what is your opinion on Christo-Paganism? What problems do you have with it? What is your opinion of Christo-Pagans (Are they Christians or Pagans?)? How do you see the future of this path playing out? Is Christo a good name for the tradition? (Personally, I say "Christian" just means follower/worshipper of the Christ, I.E. Jesus, but...)

Thanks!

My opinion about the term 'Christo-Paganism' is that it is used to encompass too many things at the same time, and that makes it nebulous and hollow of content.

Each of the paths signified by the term (or most of them) ae probably very rewarding for their practicioners (Why would they otherwise practice them?), but I honestly think that our discussions would gain in semantic clarity, if the 'Christo-Pagan' semantic field was divided into such more manageable and clear contents as, say:

Christians who meditate (Carthusians do. And Carmelites and Jesuits. And...)
Christians performing folk magic within a Christian worldview
Christians into Creation Spirituality (Matthew Fox stuff)
Christians performing kabbalistic/angel magic within a Christian worldview
Christians who are members of esoteric mystery schools
Actual dual adherents of Christianity and a pagan tradition of some sort (Frequently happening within so called 'Traditional Witchcraft')
New-agers who pick some practices and ideas of Christian origin and some practices and ideas of Pagan origin, but integrate them into a New Age framework
Pagans who integrate either Jesus, an angel, a saint or all of them in an otherwise Pagan framework
Pagans who integrate either Jesus, an angel, a saint or all of them in an otherwise Pagan framework and call it 'Wicca', making the Gardnerians startled

As long as we use one word for all of the above, none of us will really know at any point of the discussion exactly what we are discussing.

[Louisvillian]

The main complaint from the Pagan community seems to be about Original Sin.

Which isn't intrinsic to Christianity. It's mostly a doctrine in Catholicism and Protestantism. It's not present, f'rex, in Eastern Orthodoxy or the various Oriental Churches. Not to mention Christianity devoid of denomination.

But I digress, what is your opinion on Christo-Paganism?

Whatever works for you, works for you.
I think that it can make sense depending on your definition of 'paganism'. Modern Paganism, the "big P" Paganism we usually talk about, is a social and religious movement rather than a coherent family of religions with common beliefs or principles. As the thread dedicated to that subject describes at length, it is best described movementally rather than confessionally. So it's not like there's inherent concepts in contemporary Paganism to prevent one from being, say, monotheistic and believing in the importance of Jesus of Nazareth.
If one defines 'pagan' in the sense of 'nature religion/spirituality/thingy', then that can pretty readily be integrated into even traditional Christianity. In fact, the Catholic Church is rather keen on environmentalism and recognising the divine presence in the natural world. Has been for a while, and St. Francis of Assisi is a rather important figure in that regard. Free-wheeling Christianity is even more able to integrate a spiritual focus or interest in the natural world.
If one defines 'pagan' is a 'non-Christian religion/thingy', then obviously you're going to have some problems.

[SunflowerP]

 

A Reminder:

Hey, all, Just a reminder that this is an old thread that FraterBenedict has revived, and that many of the participants, including the OP, haven't been logged in on TC for a few years, and are unlikely to see any posts addressing them, much less respond. That said, it's completely fine for the topic to be revived as a general discussion; just keep in mind that a) it's still a good idea to read the previous posts, to see if what you want to say has already been said, and b) some posters may no longer be here to respond to direct queries. Sunflower TC Forum Staff

[RecycledBenedict]

A Reminder:

Hey, all, Just a reminder that this is an old thread that FraterBenedict has revived, and that many of the participants, including the OP, haven't been logged in on TC for a few years, and are unlikely to see any posts addressing them, much less respond. That said, it's completely fine for the topic to be revived as a general discussion; just keep in mind that a) it's still a good idea to read the previous posts, to see if what you want to say has already been said, and b) some posters may no longer be here to respond to direct queries. Sunflower TC Forum Staff

I am sorry if I have done something socially awkward. I think I ended up in this thread by reading an entirely different thread, which recommended this one.

[SunflowerP]

I am sorry if I have done something socially awkward. I think I ended up in this thread by reading an entirely different thread, which recommended this one.

 
Oh, you haven't done anything wrong! It's clear that you wanted to continue the broader discussion, and it's a good topic to do that with. Sometimes it's better to start a new thread on a topic than revive an old one, but other times one really does want to build upon what's already in an older thread, and the latter seems to be the case here.

It is, though, a good idea, especially when you get to a thread via the 'similar threads' recommendation at the bottom of the page, to take note of when the thread was started, and when it was last posted to, when reviving a thread, and possibly mention that in your reviving post - it's not a rules issue, though, just a good idea.

Sunflower

[RecycledBenedict]

Oh, you haven't done anything wrong! It's clear that you wanted to continue the broader discussion, and it's a good topic to do that with. Sometimes it's better to start a new thread on a topic than revive an old one, but other times one really does want to build upon what's already in an older thread, and the latter seems to be the case here.

It is, though, a good idea, especially when you get to a thread via the 'similar threads' recommendation at the bottom of the page, to take note of when the thread was started, and when it was last posted to, when reviving a thread, and possibly mention that in your reviving post - it's not a rules issue, though, just a good idea.

Sunflower

 
Thank you. I am trying to learn the local (if this is a good word for an international virtual community) etiquette.