As I mentioned in my not so recent post Avatar, my faith is changing. Over the past few months I have developed a strong distaste for the pejorative use of the words "Pagan" and "Heathen" in Christian circles and thought. Why? Because I know self-identified pagans and I love them. I know them to have great care for people and for creation, to have great self understanding and understanding of the earth. They care for one another. They hold beliefs that are in-line with Christian beliefs. They are not the opposite of Christian. They may be more "Christian" than I, a self-proclaimed believer may be. Pagans hold wisdom and truth and I hate that my own religious community uses their name in slander. When I hear "pagan" or "heathen" used pejoratively I feel offended and defensive.
I want my neighbours to be treated with the utmost respect, always.
I looked into the etymology of the words on wikipedia and sure enough this pejorative use has been around for centuries. I want it to end. I want the negative associations to be eliminated. Please help the Chrsitian community be a more welcoming and inclusive place.
Wow you sound bitter. Sounds like someone has hurt you really bad. Maybe you should go and talk to the people you think are that hateful and evil. I mean why do I an stranger get to hear about how pissed off you are but the people that need to hear don't get that privilege? That's what Jesus did "If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. I get this is a blog is there to vent and talk about things like that so thanks for sharing but chances are the people you're talking about aren't reading your blog and therefore you're not really helping you're just becoming bitter. I know this isn't how the Bible says it but I think the idea works well, If you love those who think like yo, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who think like them
ReplyDeleteDan R,
DeleteI find this comment to be off topic, very direct, and personal (in a public forum with a person you do not know personally).
First: I, personally, don't think that Danielle sounds bitter in this post.
Second: I experience your personal evaluation that it sounds like someone has hurt her to be dismissive of the point Danielle is trying to make (whether intended or not), and potentially offensive rather than perceptive.
Third, while you may be right that the people that read our blog are like-minded in such a fashion as to make this post irrelevant, I am not convinced. We have been continually surprised by the places and people we receive feedback from. Furthermore, despite the fact that on many things Danielle and I share similar opinions, I continue to find her work and thought in the Inter-faith movement to be interesting and stimulating. The word "pagan" and its many connotations is interesting and worthy of contemplating. This, I think, is particularly pertinent within Christian circles. I appreciate the thought that this post has stimulated in me.
Fourth: Danielle never uses the words "hateful or evil". She uses words like offended, distaste, pejorative, respect, self identified, defensive, welcoming, inclusive. One of the primary points of the post is to be careful with words and people. I am wondering if your comment, perhaps, is worthy of precisely the caution to be more careful with words, their use, and the potential for them to label and dismiss people.
As always, we deeply appreciate your ongoing readership and interaction, although we do invite you to perhaps in the future consider your words, their context, and possible reception more carefully than appears to be the case here. Thank you.
Duncan and Danielle,
ReplyDeleteI'm going to push back on this a bit. If someone felt the way that you did, and blogged about it rather than tell me directly, I would be very offended especially if I read about it myself first. and i would rather someone tell me directly than to post on a blog. Even if it is to a cultural ethos rather to a person The truth is individuals make culture. So if your complaining about a culture, you are complaining about individuals who have made choices that fostered the cultural ethos you disdain. You're complaining about people,... over the internet. My High schoolers do that about their friends ex
" I hate when people say they will be there for you and then bail" is no different than saying "I hate when people use the word pagan and come across judgmental." You would never tell a kid to resolve his issues over facebook, why would you you negative experiences with people from other faiths? Go talk to them and then you can vent on facebook or a blog.
Second of all Dannielle, you never used the word hateful to describe the people you're talking about - but the way you describe their actions certainly doesn't make me think they are loving - and if infact the goal of Christianity is Love then any action that does not support or foster than goal would in fact be foster evil. and while they may not be evil themselves the way you're disturbing their actions certainly pushes a person toward a pathway of evil than love. So if again I make a defense that evil is a good word to describe how these people are treating Dannielle.
Lastly it does sound bitter. I don't know you Dannielle so I suppose you could make a case that because I don't know you I have no right to make that kind of assertion. and I suppose a case could made about that- but if that's true your posts come across that way so even if you're not you're articulating yourself in way that does. If I was reading a character in a book and your posts where in it and someone asked me to label the emotional I saw in that character
I would searching, genuine, wounded, passive aggressiveness and angry - no like a Hulk angry more like a stealth angry - what other conclusion would a person come to other than that by reading your posts. Im really glad you have this post and can share your feeling on it. But to be honest it sounds like people have hurt you you have become at least hard hearted and if thats true you need to go to deal with the people issue. I'm really harping on this for a good reason and that it in my experience people who tend to have the kind of misgivings about faith tend to have been hurt by PEOPLE. and then in a effort to deal with shroud their negative experience in a debate about ethics, theology and culture and academia thinking it is the solution. I since come to the conclusion that 75% of this negative experiences are more relational than theological or philosophical. If relationships caused the issue that it stands to reason that it is relational solution that heal it.
ReplyDeleteI said what I did because when you come across about your misgivings is sounds very restful and in that moment its a red flag that as someone who has not forgiven what has happened to them. A person who has forgiven articulates their negative experiences in light of the emotion of sadness not aggressiveness and you come across passive agressive. If you haven't forgiven, what you're saying is coming from wounded heated and therefore needs to be dealt with. So if a stranger like me can pick it up over a blog there's probably a hint of truth in it even if that hint it like 2%. True story.
and lastly while I would agree that you would get some people here and there that might change the way they think because of this blog you're describing an extreme in this case. If that's true those kind of people would not read this kind of blog because they would get angry at and deem it as heresy or some crap like that. In which case you probably should just talk to them directly. That's all I say I'll wont bring it up again.
Danielle, Thanks for this post. I continue to be challenged by it, like I said when we spoke. It has been rolling around in my head for a while now. I think it is one of those ideas that "cuts to the heart of an issue", taking on pejorative uses of a word, especially when the pejorative originates in a sacred text is a always a delicate and difficult thing to confront. Because of this, I am not surprised it has ruffled some feathers, as when we read something that challenges deeply held convictions, ex. "pagan to saint", we react rather then respond. I presume this might be why there is some disagreement about the tone of the post. I think it is an uncomfortable post for many of us and thus is likely to invoke strong reactions either way.
ReplyDeleteI am challenged by the radical love and inclusivity you propose. Thanks! Radical, deep, unconditioned Love is bound to make us uncomfortable. It did in Jesus time and it does for me today.
For me reading this post, I have been mulling over Jesus inclusion and love towards Samaritans, Paul's inclusion of Gentiles, and the OT inclusion of "aliens".
I think here, where speech acts (in blog form), is an excellent place to be reminded and challenged about our language. The addition of pejorative usages of other faiths is a great addition to areas I need to learn to be slow to speak. This, misogynistic ideas, racial slurs, and ageist remarks...we have covered a lot of these in the last year.
Thanks for challenging us to be better.
Danielle I would like to know if you are aware of any self identified heathens? This word to my mind carries only a pejorative sense but I haven't looked up the etymology.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, I do not know any Heathens personally, but I know that the Lilith Temple Society meets regularly Sunday afternoons between 2pm and 4pm at Legal Grounds in Abbotsford. There would definitely be able to learn more about Heathens and may even have a chance to meet one.
DeleteHi Danielle,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your post! I'm encouraged by your love for other people, it's inspiring and you should be commended! Also, I am in full agreement that Christians ought never be mean and unnecessarily offensive to anyone, regardless of belief.
I have one comment and one question. My intention is to seek the truth, in love, with you and the other commenters on this topic.
I think it's problematic when we talk about Christianity primarily in terms of action rather than belief (or maybe better put, the belief that drives the action). While I don't know the people you refer to in your blog, I am positive that they are people who try (and often succeed) in loving other people and creation with care, diligence and (com)passion! However, the very definition of being a "pagan" or "heathen" is someone who is not a Christian, that is, someone who has not repented of sin and turns to (and follows!) the Messiah who Saves as their Lord. So while they may do good actions, I think it is too far to say that pagans and heathens are "more Christian" than some Christians because I think it is generally and historically accepted that a Christian is a gospel (loaded word I know!) believing Christ follower. People of other traditions may be more moral than some professing Christians, but morality is not the same as Christianity.
My question for you is, how ought people be tolerant? I think that many people have a new working definition of tolerance that states that if you disagree with someone, or think your view is better, then you are intolerant. I've always thought that intolerance was an unwillingness to respect someone (and their view) in light of a disagreement (i.e. resorting to awful name-calling, abuse, violence, etc.). I may have totally, and unfairly, read the aforementioned "working definition" of tolerance into your post (and if I did, I'm sorry). However, if my hunch is close to correct regarding your working knowledge of tolerance, I'm genuinely curious how you think people ought to engage with those whom they disagree with in a way that affirms similarities but doesn't bulldoze and/or abandon differences?
Greg,
DeleteThank you so much for the affirmation and for engaging peacefully with the topic.
I definitely agree with your statement “morality is not the same as Christianity.” Taking your comment into consideration, my statement “They may be more “Christian” than I a self-proclaimed Christian may be” would be better articulated as “The Pagans that I know personally often act more Christ-like than I”.
I would like to add that just as morality does not suffice to define a Christian, neither does Non-Christian suffice to define a Pagan. I am glad you have a problem with the first. I have a problem with both.
The primary purpose of my post was to illustrate that today there is more to the definition of Pagan than is insinuated commonly in Christian circles. My definition of Pagan has changed dramatically in the last 8 months because Pagans have shared their faith with me.
Thank you for asking about my opinion of tolerance. Rather than tolerance I think we should strive for understanding. You asked, how I think people ought to engage with those whom they disagree with in a way that affirms similarities but doesn't bulldoze and/or abandon differences.” I think the answer is celebration. Rejoice in your similarities and celebrate your differences. From my experience, the best way to engage with people who hold different beliefs is to celebrate Holy Days and cultural/religious milestones together. Go to one another’s places of worship for a service or meditation time with the intent to learn, not to challenge. Inquire as to why they have chosen their beliefs and how they made that decision. Wade together as your beliefs are challenged. Breakdown stereotypes of the other. Ask questions like “What would you like me to know about your faith?” Attend interfaith dialogues.
Thanks for the post and comments, Danielle, Silas, and Duncan! I can't really comment on Dan R's long-winded, self-described "harping" because it was so irrelevant to your post. But I actually want to respond to Greg.
ReplyDeleteGreg, you asked an interesting question: How can we be tolerant? With your working definition, you are basically asking, "How can we respect a person even when we disagree?" or "How can we respect a person when we think our view is better?"
My opinion is this. I think it's easy to be respectful (tolerant) towards people despite disagreement. People and families and friends do this all the time. But I think it's quite difficult to be respectful if one thinks their own view is better. That sense of superiority (egocentrism, ethnocentrism, xenophobia, etc) has led humanity to do all sorts of bizarre and terrible things.
I mean, let's face it, we all think our own view is best at first, otherwise we wouldn't have chosen it as our own view! But a certain growth period occurs in people sometimes where we realize that our own view isn't necessarily better. It may be the best view for ourselves, personally, or the one that makes the most sense given one person's experience, but that doesn't make it necessarily best for other peope.
Hey Danica,
DeleteI agree that tolerance (i.e. respect and care in the midst of disagreement) is awesome and can prevent humanity doing bizarre and terrible things to each other.
That said, when tolerance is defined as "You can't tell me you think you're right and I'm wrong" I think we are talking about something totally different than tolerance. I think inherent in tolerance is disagreement, and inherent in disagreement is believing one idea is "worse" and another is "better". Otherwise, we all think the same thing anyways and you don't "tolerate" the other, you agree with them.
I also agree that we think the way we do about things because we believe them to be best, or true. I agree that over time people grow and mature but that doesn't necessarily mean that inherent in that growth is coming to the realization that your view is flawed (it might be), and I think you can still believe you believe something better and be tolerant. I'm not sure I agree with your last sentence, because I'm not convinced that truth is as relative as you seem to suggest.
Nevertheless, I think I may have taken this discussion in a tangent because I'm not sure Danielle is even working with the view of tolerance that I (perhaps unfairly) perceived she is. I'm happy to be corrected and admit that I misread the situation. Sorry also for hijacking the topic.
All the best,