I come back 24 hours later to a computer and find a lot of discussion here, not all of it civil nor necessarily even related to the thrust of the essay itself. I'll try to reply as much as possible in this comment to the others rather than trying to chase down specific comment threads.
First of all, I should note that if I didn't have people who disagree with me reading my work, I'd be a failed writer. Comments that say "you shouldn't be here if you disagree" are quite contrary to what I'm about. Please don't do this anymore.
Specifically regarding Paul's critiques, which there are a few, I'll respond first about my use of "indigenous." I'm actually quite surprised to need to clarify, as I'm more accustomed to extreme social justice sorts in the US taking umbrage at its use: for them, nothing can be "indigenous" to Europe, and any use of the term related to people in Europe is immediately seen as racist and "white supremacist."
Here I use the term to reference the animist traditions which had developed in relationship to place over thousands of years. Where I live, the animist practices of the Celtic Treveri would be one such "indigenous" practice. Because monotheism has taught people to think in universalizing categories, it's helpful to remember that these were actually multiplicities. There was no "indigenous European animism" but rather countless "indigenous European animisms." And it was these animisms, or what the Christians called "pagan" or "heathen" beliefs, that the Church actively stamped out by direct force and slower conversion.
Regarding the Anglo and Saxon situation in England, it appears to have parallels to the movement of the Franks into Treveri lands, though it was probably more violent there than here. Here, the two peoples merged quite seamlessly, as was very common pre-Christianity. Gods also: Arduinna and Freyj seem to have merged, rather than one displacing the other. Before the Christian conquest of North America, the situation was quite similar for indigenous (use "native" if you need to) peoples there. Thought sometimes one tribe might slaughter another, most often the process was more like the Frankish/Treveri merging.
Once the Franks were Christianized here, however, the situation is quite different. Frankish kings converted by missionaries offering promises of greater power -- just as Roman emperors had -- then did the work of the missionaries for them with swords. It was a highly effective ploy on the part of the missionaries, who everywhere faced resistance and retaliation. Easier to spread the gospel if you've got armies to back you up.
Regarding Patrick and the apparent "gap" of missionary work: there was plenty of conversion occurring before Patrick throughout Europe, but this looked much more like what it always did, as when Theodosius ordered all the pagan shrines destroyed at Mt. Athos to so it could be filled with monasteries instead. That is: it was primarily by force. Paul, you are correct that Patrick initiated a different process, but it can hardly be called "bottom up" because he started first with the conversions of the tuatha. And though he was a slave for six years, in one of the only pieces of writing we can really be certain was probably his, he himself notes he was born to a large land-holding family before being captured by Irish raiders.
Now to the question of moral/immoral, I think it's pretty clear from my entire body of writing that I don't divide people or actions that way, nor do I believe there is even such a think as a "moral" or "immoral" act. In fact, that's a crucial point to keep in mind about monotheism's treatment of those who cremated the remains of their ancestors. For animists, it wasn't a question of it being the "moral" thing to do, but rather "the thing we do." For monotheists, burial wasn't just the "the thing we do" but also "the only thing everyone else should do, too." This is a peculiar feature inherent to monotheism itself, as I've pointed out repeatedly before. Once all other gods are deemed as false or demons, then they must be fought and their followers converted (by coaxing or by force) at the "true" god's behest. Again, this is a peculiar (and singular) feature of all monotheisms, not just Christianity.
Thanks, Rhyd. Nicely put, particularly your delineation of indigenous and pagan.
I can’t help but think that monotheism is part of a larger historical trend which includes monoculture in other areas such as agriculture, economics, politics and technology. It is reductionist in nature, stamps out difference, flattens the field of experience, centralizes power. Based on abstraction, it imposes its blueprint on everything. Standardization. One might call it “Empire” or one might even call it “The Machine”. Hmmmm.....
Are you familiar with Josh Schrei’s work at The Emerald podcast? Really quite wonderful!
I used to think the same way. then I noticed that traditional Christian socities were not at all monocultural. I also noticed that polytheistic socieites, like Japan, were very culturally homogenous. And I noticed that some of the world's greatest empires, from the Romans to the Incas, were polytheists, and that many tribal animist societies were brutal and repressive. Now I think that 'monotheism' doesn't even exist beyond the conceptual.
Jun 1, 2023·edited Jun 1, 2023Liked by Rhyd Wildermuth
When the master is away the servants will sometimes misbehave. I apologise for my part in any misbehaviour. These are passionate topics.
I'm trying to get to the heart of what I am disagreeing about here. Obviously as a Christian - but not just as a Christian - I take exception to what I see as some unbalanced generalisations here: monotheism versus animism; colonising Christians versus the peaceful 'merging' of 'pre-Christian peoples; violent Christian conversion versus peaceful animist co-operation. This all smacks of an us-and-them case being made; of history being utilised for an end. I can see the Marxism under the surface. There's truth in it, but not enough, and there's too much smoothing out of the awkward bits that don't fit.
So there's that. But I think maybe my problem is a deeper one. It's that I suppose I have always seen myself as an 'indigenous European' (or an 'indigenous Briton' at least; they're not necessarily the same thing.) I am also something of an animist. I am also an Orthodox Christian, who sees Christianity as a formative and indeed 'indigenous' religion. I was mulling this over this morning, when I noticed a comment someone had left under my latest essay over at the Abbey, on an unrelated point:
'Some of my own ancestors lived on the land in the West of Ireland as recently as 1910. They had a Christian and a magical folk worldview which did not have to choose between the two.'
It summed up my itch. This worldview - a kind of animism, a deep connection to place, a sense of 'indigeneity', if you like, a love of the saints and the virgin, a belief in Christ as God Himself made flesh, the taking of communion and the drinking of water from holy wells - this was common here until very recently. It was common all over Europe. It *is* 'European indigenity.' The pre-Christian world is 2000 years past, and we don't even know, really, what those faiths were. Reconstruction is not immersion.
So this is my itch. Most Europeans remain Christian. Are you arguing that we throw away 2000 years of our own culture? That we 'go back' to some form of 'animism' that we don't know and can't relate to? That Christianity cannot also carry within it these things that you (and I) value? That because Christians in the distant past carried out forced conversions their faith is uniquely bad and untrue and unjust (as if the Celts weren't sacrificing humans, or the Anglo-Saxons not blood-eagling their enemies in the name of Woden ... etc)
I'll end by saying something we can agree on, and which this conversation has helped me to understand. You're quite right that when Christianity arrives the Christians will want to prevent worship of other 'gods.' This remains the sticking point. I don't accept that requiring others to adopt your religion is 'a peculiar feature inherent to monotheism itself', as you put it; I've already pointed out that the Roman persecution of Christians happened because Christians would not buy into Roman religious forms.
But is true that while Christians and pagans both see a world full of powers and principalities, beings and spirits, Christianity insists that these beings are not to be worshipped, or even to be worked with (though plenty of Christians try to propitiate some of them anyway). It is an entirely different worldview. Probably there is no compromise. This comes down to an understanding of what truth is, and what the pattern of the universe is. We will probably not agree on this, but we can agree - and we have - not to kill each other about it.
“Are you arguing that we throw away 2000 years of our own culture? That we 'go back' to some form of 'animism' that we don't know and can't relate to?”
Speaking for myself (whilst I interject my opinion into a question directed to Rhyd), this statement misunderstands animism. Unlike modern religions, animism is not based on form; it is based on relatedness. It isn’t, per se, a religion, in the modernist sense. What follows for me is paying quite close attention to how I relate to the beings, seen and unseen, in my locale. I don’t “worship” any of them. I treat them, to the best of my ability (and often fall very short of the mark) with respect and reciprocity.
For a deeper dive into this subject, including issues of indigeneity, cultural appropriation, and the hazards of recreating an imagined past, Rune Rasmussen offers some fine work at his YouTube channel, “Nordic Animism”.
I understand that, and have read and written (and indeed practiced) plenty about animism myself in the past. I've also taught a writing course for many years which in effect teaches animist writing.
But actually we're making the same point. As I said above, I don't think that 'monotheism' and 'animism' are the opposites Rhyd is setting them up to be, and it is not true either that Christians cannot be animist in the sense that you lay out here:
'paying quite close attention to how I relate to the beings, seen and unseen, in my locale. I don’t “worship” any of them. I treat them, to the best of my ability (and often fall very short of the mark) with respect and reciprocity.'
In that sense, I am an animist too. There's great hope in that.
Thanks, Paul. Just a point of clarity which is likely unnecessary: I’m not trying to box you up into any category. I have read much of what you have published and appreciate it deeply. The question of religion is the area where I have not resonated as deeply with you, but because I have resonated with the rest, so to speak (as if they can be separated, lol), I am deeply curious about your perspective on religion. So, thank you for taking the time here. We have one (Greek) Orthodox Church here in Louisville. I’m going to go check it out to see what might make itself known to me. I’ll report back.
Ah, so this last part is what's been really fascinating to me, because Christianity is absolutely also a magical system (or world view) and at least during the middle ages was quite open-minded and even syncretic in its beliefs.
The key to noticing this is the subsequent reformation drive within both the Church and in the Protestant schismatics. Both were attempting to purge out the "pagan" or "superstitious" elements in the Church which had persisted and actually expanded during the medieval period.
It's an extremely expensive book, but historian Valerie Flint's "The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe" gives a really good glimpse into what was happened. Or also Richard Keickhefer's "Magic In the Middle Ages" is also helpful. Both paint a picture of a very magical Christianity that angered zealot bishops and reformation missionaries but was otherwise quite tolerated in monasteries and more independent churches until the 16th century.
And though of course I'm not an anarchist by any means anymore, when one reads how it was always church authorities and missionaries -- and usually from distant lands -- who were the most outraged that everyday Christians still nodded in the direction of burial mounds or standing stones, it starts to look a lot more like the harsher monotheist purges were political attempts to maintain ecclesiastical authority over unruly or self-ruled Christian communities.
The pagan-ness in Catholocism has been an interesting feature to me for much of my life, though I never thought much of it until marrying my wife, who is what I would describe as a progressive non-denominational (maybe even non-doctrinal) Christian.
She compared much of Catholic practice to paganism (the relics, the warding gestures [like the sign of the cross or the spraying of holy water], the pantheon of saints and angels, the prayers--or incantations--beseeching a saint for help, etc), which, she was explaining to me, is why many non-Catholic Christians consider Catholicism unChristian.
But I see these things with my own mother, who is a fundamentalist hardcore Catholic. She has a shrine full of bones allegedly from saints, she has statues and totems for different saints, she wears a scapular, carries holy water with her, and on and on.
As an outsider to religion in general, I do find the resonances carried across and between religions a fascinating feature of various spiritual practices. And I suppose I may be more in agreement with Paul in that these separate things may, in fact, be the same thing.
I know The Mists of Avalon has fallen far out of favor since the world discovered the truth about Marion Zimmer Bradley sexually abusing children, but I think the conclusion of that novel offers a hopeful view towards the Christian/Pagan divide, which is what Paul's comments in this specific thread remind me of.
Thank you for a fascinating article. I had no idea laws on cremation were, and in some places still are, so strict. In the UK the undertaker just gives you a cardboard tube full of the deceased’s ashes. My parents ashes lie under their favourite apple tree in the garden of what is presently my house. I often stop to talk to or think of them.
I do sometimes find it difficult, as a European, to read some of this anti-Christian stuff. It seems predicated, especially this time around, on a leftist us-vs-them model, which offers up a 'indigenous good, Christians bad' argument, which also seems very American. The idea that the 'indigenous' Europeans were pagan/animist/earth-loving (good) but were then 'colonised' by 'Christians' who were imperial/murderous/opressive (bad) relies on a lot of squinting and rewriting of history. It also relies on the notion that Christianity can not be an 'indigenous' European religion. I would be interested to know what is 'indigenous' and what is not. Are European Christians somehow not 'indigenous'? Were they all 'colonised'? Who got to decide that?
I live in Ireland, for example. How did 'the Christians' colonise Ireland? No blood was shed here at all to 'convert' anyone. The most famous evangelist was a freed slave. And who are these 'indigenous Europeans' and where did they come from, and what were their 'pagan' religions? Evidence for human sacrifice (abolished by Christians) is fairly clear in some cultures, and is attested to in Ireland. When the 'indigneous' Anglo-Saxons arrived in (ie invaded) what was to become England, didn't they 'colonise' the Romano-British (human sacrifice also attested to there) and replace the Celtic river gods with the Germanic gods of war and thunder?
I could go on, but as a European former pagan who was later 'colonised' by Christianity I'm seeing a rather different story. A lot of colonisation and brutality, by both Christians and 'pagans', a lot of battles over truth, and no obvious moral/immoral dividing line between the horrible colonising foreign Christians and the virtuous, indigenous, Earth-loving Europeans. Sometimes I worry about where these narratives can lead.
The narrative of “you must believe and act as I do” is likely the most dangerous. The exclusivity of monotheistic religions is terribly problematic, as history has born out, time and time again. I have no problem with Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) people or their beliefs, unless, of course, those beliefs are imposed upon myself or my family. I’m equally comfortable praying to Christ as I am to Frey or to my wise and benevolent ancestors. In and out, us and them, saved and damned.....what a lot of rot.
I appreciate you and your work, Paul. Truly. I look forward to reading each offering you post on Substack. Funny enough, you and Rhyd are two of the three authors to whom I am a paid subscriber (The Convivial Society bring the third, highly recommended). So, I hope you will count me as part of the “loyal opposition” on this matter.
I think therein is the problem, yes. How anyone wishes to honor their dead should be a matter of religious liberty and respected regardless how one feels. Putting to death or otherwise criminalizing those who choose to do differently from what you think should be done, however, is a completely different matter.
Thanks, and I don't really see anyone as 'opposition.' Actually everyone here seems to be arguing from a liberal framework, which is very modern of us. We can all agree that imposing beliefs is a bad thing. Where we differ is in the notion that only the Christians did so. This is hardly the case, as the Aztecs, the Inca, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scots and numerous other 'pagans' who wiped out previous lifeways demonstrate. My problem is the 'Christian bad pagans good' framing. It's no less divisive than the other way round; in fact, it's just a photographic opposite of it. As far as I can see, humans are brutes whoever they worship. At least Christianity gives us a narrow path out of our brutality, however bad we are at following it.
We can probably also agree that the Christian church, in its history, has sometimes - perhjps often - betrayed the teachings of Christ, and that imposing the faith is wrong. You or I or anyone else is free to follow Christ, or not to do so - which was what he himself instructed.
We won't agree on the option of praying to Christ and Frey at the same time. 'Monotheists' are indeed very clear on what should be worshipped (the creator) and what shouldn't (creation). We do also believe there are consequences that come about through turning away from creator and word, and walking in the other direction. Christians are not 'liberal' in that sense.
If that worldview is chosen rather than imposed, we are free to believe it or not to. That's as it should be, I think. But let's also remember that this is a very modern, liberal, secular claim - that we should all 'choose our religion.' And liberalism has also been imposed, by force, by the state, Few people in history were ever 'free' to 'choose' their whole worldview, and people born into some small 'indigenous' tribe would have just as many restrictions on burial, worship and life in general as European Christians. My problem with Rhyd's framing is how skewed it is. No study of any 'indigenous' culture will reveal it to be any less restrictive than European Christendom.
I think you make a false equivalency between “pagan” and “indigenous” and use them interchangeably. I agree with your statements about pagans, but I do not think they are valid for most indigenous societies. They do not choose belief systems. As you rightly note, that is a modernist phenomenon. Indigenous cultures are a result of relationships with Land and the other beings in that local community. What we call religion is simply part of their relating.
I also understand what monotheists believe. I have a head full of education by priests and am well acquainted with the theologies of the Abrahamic religions. It’s the exclusivity that I reject. I suppose that is much of the theology. What I am left with when that stuff is out of the way is Love. I think and feel and experience Love as foundational. Theology that supports exclusivity is anti-relational which precludes Love, the ultimate message of Christ. Good enough for me. I like Frey, too (I’m a former farmer and current horticulturist).
As for the “loyal opposition” comment, perhaps I might have chosen better wording. I’m not in allegiance with any group that is in opposition to you or Christianity; I just meant that I appreciate your perspectives, but I disagree with this one. My disagreement is in good faith, not trying to hurt you.
I didn't mean to make that equivalency. I was rather trying to respond to what I saw as that equivalency on here. I've always had a problem with the word 'indigenous', hence the scare quotes. I'm not really sure what it means, and I'm not sure either that there is an agreed definition. Usually it seems to be a political claim, from whatever perspective. I am still trying to work out whether or not it is a useful word, or whether it raises more questions than answers.
Anyway, my wider point was that 'indigenous' people, in Europe or elsewhere (if by that we mean 'original' people, or 'people who have been there a long time' or 'people who live lives close to nature' - this is the problem...) could also be Christian. Or indeed something else. There is no necessity for them to be 'pagan' (another tricky word, one designed by Christians to generalise about everyone else.)
The claim on here is that 'indigenous Europeans' were naturally 'pagan' until they were 'colonised' by invading Christians, whose faith is somehow foreign to us 'Europeans' abnd should be thrown off. It's a worldview I used to share, and it's a story that can be constructed from a certain perspective. But it's not anything like the full truth, and my attempted point here is that the relationship with place, land and community you talk about can also be a Christian one, and often is. I have seen that where I live in Ireland, whose Christianity has been deeply 'indigenous' here for centuries. It once was in England too. I would also argue that Christianity is in fact an 'indigenous' European faith; the one that has created the Europe we know, and the values and the mythos of the people who live in it.
I'm currently reading John Moriarty's 'Dreamtime', which is intriguing and deep for anyone interested in this conversation from an Irish perspective. Moriarty seeks a chthonic, Irish, land-based Christian mythos. It's worth a read.
As for 'exclusivity' - well, I think actually that all 'religious' worldviews are 'exclusive' in their own way. A tribal 'pagan' spirituality, for example, will exclude those outside the tribe, who don't live in that way or come from that place. I can't be Choctaw or Innu or Yanomami. Followers of Christ believe he is the second person of the Trinity, and thus the manifestation of the divine creator within time and space. We don't believe this about Frey, and thus, in that sense, the claim is certainly exclusive. But again, I think the notion that we can pick and choose our gods from a dozen different pantheons is very modern.
Thank you very much for taking the time to flesh this out. It gives me much to ponder. I wish I had the time and energy to respond properly in a way that honors this topic and both our perspectives. There is so much to discuss! If only I could sit down with Paul and Rhyd and the other fine folks “here” and share a pint as we hammer away and love one another all the same. If you’re ever in Kentucky.......😉
I replied at length in a separate comment because there are many and it's hard to follow. Just as a note, though, the last line about picking and choosing gods being very modern is actually quite the opposite. Quite a bit has been written about the "additive" nature of animist and polytheist beliefs in the ancient past. This feature irked Christian missionaries to no end in Africa particularly, as "converted" tribes would just add Jesus to their shrines. Several European bishops also complained of (and issued rather violent edicts against) this same problem occurring in the Iberian peninsula, where people would visit both pagan shrines and Christian churches in the same day. They had merely "added" Jesus, just as happened in Santeria and other syncretic religions in the Americas.
That's a fair point. And actually it's what got Christians burned, tortured and persecuted by the Roman polytheists in the early years. The Romans were happy for them to add 'Chrestus' to their pantheon, but not to empty their pantheon of everyone else. The Christians explained, then as now, that this isn't how it works.
Personally I can't see much difference between what the Romans did to the Christians and what the Christians later did to the Romans (and other pagans.) It's religious conflict. Christians have no monopoly on trying to ensure the supremacy of their faith. But I'll write more when I have time.
I'm not sure that monotheistic religions are the only ones being exclusive when it comes to questions of what to do with the dead. Many animistic tribal societies have/had very clear protocols on how to treat the dead, whether that's cremation or sky burial or mummification or eating the deceased's brains. There were no 'options' in these societies because proper treatment of the dead was so closely tied in to the well-being of the tribe - spirits must be appeased, order kept. As such, this idea that people should be able to choose what to do with their dead seems to me to be rather a modern one which is historically rather unusual.
Oops.....are deeply related to the land on which they live. The practices of the culture emerge out of the necessities of living in a particular landscape. To paraphrase Pat McCabe/Woman Stands Shining: Culture is the Earth expressing Herself through human beings in a specific place.
I think this is very interesting, and true. But I think there's another layer too. Again, I always come back to the cultures I know, England and Ireland, both of which are very old nations, which were Christian from their foundation. That Christianity, at the local level (before the Reformation, anyway) was deeply woven into land-based life. The seasonal festivals, the pilgrim routes, the holy wells, the shrines, the blessing of waters and crops, and much more. And in the Orthodox east, which I am getting to know, the same is true, and still persists. I have visited Romania a few times in the last two years, and this deeply land-based Christianity is there too. It's not something dropped from the sky onto an 'indigenous' culture, but rather something that has created that culture.
And this is related in fact to Christianity's lack of the 'exclusivity' you talked about above. Because the faith is universal - the creator made and loves all humans, Christian or otherwise - the love of that creator can be woven into any culture on Earth. It can also, of course, be imposed by force by idiots who think such an imposition is 'Christian.' But that's hardly the whole story, and if it was, Christianity would have died a long time ago.
This adds another layer to the problem of monotheistic religions which do not fall under this definition. They are belief systems without connection to a land base. The belief system is something one adheres to, not something that grows organically out of relationship with the Land. Most indigenous cultures have no concept of religion. What looks like religion to the Western eye is just part of relating to the world around indigenous people.
Great comment and one I generally agree with as the religions stand today. Interestingly, though, the biblical depiction of early Judaism seems to imply a different relationship between the Israelites and their God YHWH. The Jewish God was not understood as disconnected from land so much as being regarded as lord of ALL the land - the entire earth, and all that is in it. This understanding is found throughout the old testament. Famously, God tells his first human creations to 'guard and keep' the earth, i.e. he specifically gives them a land-based purpose in life. John Walton in his work on Genesis and ancient middle eastern cultures shows quite convincingly that this command should be understood in religious terms: as priests are called to guard and keep the temple/the sacred so humans are called to guard and keep the earth. i.e. the temple and its works are seen as a microcosm of what the entire earth is: a temple to the creator God with humans placed in it as his priests.
It wasn't until the Greek philosophical influence with its dualism and disconnection from nature that both Judaism and Christianity began to loose this creation based understanding of our human purpose in life. Maybe now would be a good time to bring it back?
I think it's quite difficult to read anything of the history of Christianization in Europe and elsewhere-- even from official church sources -- and in any way get the sense that people adopted the new religion of their own free will. If that had been the case, there'd have been no need to order the deaths of those choosing to bury their dead as their ancestors had done so, or to burn heretics (human sacrifice) alive on stakes, or to destroy shrines and other holy places, or to beat and torture those who resisted. Not peace but a sword, as Jesus is reported to have said.
You've accurately identified the leftist framing here though missed where it is. Pre-woke leftists, if they did anything of worth, correctly noticed that what the dominant order propagandizes as willing conversion (to capitalism or to Christianity) in all cases ignores and actively erases all the physical, political, social, and spiritual violence enacted to convince people to "willingly" convert.
I don't agree on this one. Reading the sources will give you a very mixed picture of what conversion was. For example, between St Paul and St Patrick the church carried out no recorded missionary work at all, and it had no power on its side to force anyone to follow it. In fact, it was actively persecuted by the polytheist pagans of the Roman imperial state, who burnt Christians as living candles, threw them to lions, crucified them and tortured them by the thousand for refusing to burn incense to Caesar. Yet in that same time period, the faith spread widely, throughout north Africa, the middle east, India and southern Europe. Clearly there was some other reason apart from brutality and oppression.
When, later, the faith came to northern and Western Europe it tended to spread, in its early years, through conversion of kings and leaders, who would then spread the faith to their people. This was how society worked - from the top-down. A king, whether Christian or 'pagan', would expect his people to follow his faith. But there are many other examples - I've quoted Ireland for one - in which Christianity seems to have spread from the bottom up. There were reasons people embraced it in place of what came before: and the brutality of what came before was sometimes among them.
Nobody would deny the forced conversions you talk about, or indeed the many un-Christian things the church has done in its various alliances with power. Certainly not me; I condemn them. But when you present this as the full story, and play down or ignore the many equal horrors carried out by 'pagans', you skew the record. It's not as if the leadership in some Anglo-Saxon ham c.500AD would have said to the people, 'we think you should worship Woden, but hey, if you choose not to, that's cool too.' And when you represent 'indigenous Europeans' as naturally 'pagan' and 'Christians' as some sort of foreign, colonial imposition, you are both imposing a modern American woke narrative (bad whites vs good BIPOCS), and coming close to a dodgy god-and-soil narrative, and I don't think you actually believe in either of those things.
Where I will agree with you is that 'monotheisms' call for worship to directed towards the creating One rather than the created Many. This is the fundamental difference between 'monotheists' and 'polytheists' and it's not really a bridgeable gap. But if we all have the choice about who to worship, then the burden is on us to get it right. When Jesus talked about not bringing peace but a sword, this is what he was talking about: the divisions, even within families, that these competing understandings of divinity would create.
How is Christianity 'white'? It came from the Middle East, like Judaism and Islam. It's not as though the Europeans of the time invited the early Christian missionaries. We're the Europeans of the time not indigenous somehow? Are only Africans allowed to be called indigenous because humans first evolved there? Early Europeans were clearly pagan as the word means 'country dweller' and there weren't many towns in Europe before the Romans arrived and started building them. Plus the early Europeans were clearly Polytheist, meaning 'many gods', as there is evidence of the veneration of many different gods. How can such limited creatures as humans actually know who or what was the creator of everything anyway? We humans tend to think we're very clever but to claim to know for absolute certain who or what actually created everything seems to be pushing it a bit.
I didn't say Christianity was white; I was referring to the way the woke left in the US currently sets up a distinction between bad white 'colonists' and virtuous 'indigenous' people, and pointing out that this can't be applied to Europe. You're right: Christianity is a middle eastern religion, which had followers in Africa and Asia long before it come to western and northern Europe. Europeans can be as 'indigenous' as anyone else, but I don't accept that there was ever such a thing as a 'European indigenous religion', nor that 'indigenous' Europeans can't be Christian.
As for what we can know - well, we can certainly agree that there is a lot we can never know on this Earth, including the nature of God. But then by the same token, we could apply to 'the gods' of the polytheists.' Humility in the face of our ignorance is definteily a good starting point for all of us.
You did seem to be saying that Christianity was white as you but it on the same side of your divide as you put 'white'; with the 'bad, white colonists', and let's be honest, they were bad (for the people already living there and the land and it's wildlife), they were white, they were colonists, and they were Christians. European people didn't have a European indigenous religion, they had many European indigenous religions, or do you think Europeans had no religious ideas until Christianity came along to 'civilize' them? It's that kind of attitude which makes me wonder a bit about the practice of humility amongst Christians; the idea that they couldn't possibly be mistaken. Your use of quotation marks for words like pagan, European indigenous religion, and indigenous Europeans, leads me to think you don't think these really exist. How would you like people to write 'christian' every time they wrote it?
I am an 'indigenous European' and so were my ancestors. I've written rather a lot about those old faiths. I am also a Christian. There is no contradiction. But you seem to be misunderstanding me quite powerfully, so I'll leave it there.
I think most people when they think of Christianity particularly in Western Europe think post-council of Trent. So reactionary Catholics and puritan Protestants. Remember this is when the Witch burnings and inquisition was at it’s height. Rhyds’s review of Caliban and the Witch is useful here. Actual medieval Christianity was a much more colourful affair. Just have a read of ‘the golden legend’ or see what actually happened in religious festivals in those times. It was a Christianity much more immersed in the fantastic and miraculous. Agreed they did have there religious wars (think Crusades etc) but these seem more of a cover for power politics (nothing ever changes). Maybe this aspect of Christianity had more attraction than we might think among pagans. I’d prefer a bit of penance over the spread eagle ;).
All I can think is that you are free to not read this newsletter. At this point you should be well aware of what the gist is here and if you find it difficult, you can relieve yourself of that difficulty.
I hadn't realised that we were only supposed to read essays by people we agreed with about everything. I'm certainly glad that's not how all my readers behave towards me.
Constructive criticism is healthy! Your comment is somewhat amusing to me since I actually found Rhyd's work via Paul's recommendation a while back. I assume many others did as well.
I suppose you are also free not to read or respond to any of the comments here. I, for one, wish to hear different perspectives. Thankfully, I have no doubt that Mr. Kingsnorth will continue to participate here.
Excellent and informative piece. Olly is right to observe there are few rules around scattering ashes here in the UK, although sometimes i wonder if there there should be a few more i.e. It's not that uncommon (in the busy Peak District at least) to find piles of gritty scatterings along with impromptu mini-shrines in popular sites and 'picnic spots' - which can be touching, grimly amusing or disconcerting - especially on a windy day. The death forests sound like an excellent move. Overall I'm with you Rhyd in that dealing with our dead should be a choice for those left living irrespective of faith. The 'Godless' libertarian approach is playing out in the UK right now, for better or worse.
I have my tree picked out in the redwoods of the Santa Cruz mountains of California and my son is delegated to deliver the ashes. Oh, the horrors of humanity from bones stacked in churches to the skull rack containing thousands of skulls at the base of the Aztec’s chief sacrificial pyramid. At least Christianity is supposed to make do with only one human sacrifice, though when the church got its hands on political power it couldn’t resist the temptation of the expiatory delights of capital punishment. Thank God that power has for the most part be removed. Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization, thinks the Irish embraced Christ because they found a better deal than what they had in their religion, and it seems from ancient records the Celtic Christian saints were handy with miracles, out magicking the competition.
Thank you for the fascinating article. I do like the idea of scattering the ashes under trees or into flowing water as we did with my parents in law in the UK. I am not even sure if that was legal at the time. The bit I have real problems with is the actual cremation. Not that I would be afraid that my dead body could feel the heat but the thought that it would be processed by an industrial unit, frankly horrifies me. I actually believe it would be hard to insist that you would not want to be cremated as I believe a buriel and a plot would cost a fair bit.
I had no idea there was so much difficulty about burial in parts of Europe. Over here in the US we imagine you to be less religiously strict, but on the subject of death we're currently having small arguments over much more exotic ways of treating human remains, from composting to liquefaction, under theologies ranging from neo/pseudo-paganism to questions of efficiency and utility to the machine. Hah.
I come back 24 hours later to a computer and find a lot of discussion here, not all of it civil nor necessarily even related to the thrust of the essay itself. I'll try to reply as much as possible in this comment to the others rather than trying to chase down specific comment threads.
First of all, I should note that if I didn't have people who disagree with me reading my work, I'd be a failed writer. Comments that say "you shouldn't be here if you disagree" are quite contrary to what I'm about. Please don't do this anymore.
Specifically regarding Paul's critiques, which there are a few, I'll respond first about my use of "indigenous." I'm actually quite surprised to need to clarify, as I'm more accustomed to extreme social justice sorts in the US taking umbrage at its use: for them, nothing can be "indigenous" to Europe, and any use of the term related to people in Europe is immediately seen as racist and "white supremacist."
Here I use the term to reference the animist traditions which had developed in relationship to place over thousands of years. Where I live, the animist practices of the Celtic Treveri would be one such "indigenous" practice. Because monotheism has taught people to think in universalizing categories, it's helpful to remember that these were actually multiplicities. There was no "indigenous European animism" but rather countless "indigenous European animisms." And it was these animisms, or what the Christians called "pagan" or "heathen" beliefs, that the Church actively stamped out by direct force and slower conversion.
Regarding the Anglo and Saxon situation in England, it appears to have parallels to the movement of the Franks into Treveri lands, though it was probably more violent there than here. Here, the two peoples merged quite seamlessly, as was very common pre-Christianity. Gods also: Arduinna and Freyj seem to have merged, rather than one displacing the other. Before the Christian conquest of North America, the situation was quite similar for indigenous (use "native" if you need to) peoples there. Thought sometimes one tribe might slaughter another, most often the process was more like the Frankish/Treveri merging.
Once the Franks were Christianized here, however, the situation is quite different. Frankish kings converted by missionaries offering promises of greater power -- just as Roman emperors had -- then did the work of the missionaries for them with swords. It was a highly effective ploy on the part of the missionaries, who everywhere faced resistance and retaliation. Easier to spread the gospel if you've got armies to back you up.
Regarding Patrick and the apparent "gap" of missionary work: there was plenty of conversion occurring before Patrick throughout Europe, but this looked much more like what it always did, as when Theodosius ordered all the pagan shrines destroyed at Mt. Athos to so it could be filled with monasteries instead. That is: it was primarily by force. Paul, you are correct that Patrick initiated a different process, but it can hardly be called "bottom up" because he started first with the conversions of the tuatha. And though he was a slave for six years, in one of the only pieces of writing we can really be certain was probably his, he himself notes he was born to a large land-holding family before being captured by Irish raiders.
Now to the question of moral/immoral, I think it's pretty clear from my entire body of writing that I don't divide people or actions that way, nor do I believe there is even such a think as a "moral" or "immoral" act. In fact, that's a crucial point to keep in mind about monotheism's treatment of those who cremated the remains of their ancestors. For animists, it wasn't a question of it being the "moral" thing to do, but rather "the thing we do." For monotheists, burial wasn't just the "the thing we do" but also "the only thing everyone else should do, too." This is a peculiar feature inherent to monotheism itself, as I've pointed out repeatedly before. Once all other gods are deemed as false or demons, then they must be fought and their followers converted (by coaxing or by force) at the "true" god's behest. Again, this is a peculiar (and singular) feature of all monotheisms, not just Christianity.
Thanks, Rhyd. Nicely put, particularly your delineation of indigenous and pagan.
I can’t help but think that monotheism is part of a larger historical trend which includes monoculture in other areas such as agriculture, economics, politics and technology. It is reductionist in nature, stamps out difference, flattens the field of experience, centralizes power. Based on abstraction, it imposes its blueprint on everything. Standardization. One might call it “Empire” or one might even call it “The Machine”. Hmmmm.....
Are you familiar with Josh Schrei’s work at The Emerald podcast? Really quite wonderful!
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-emerald/id1465445746?i=1000612412252
I used to think the same way. then I noticed that traditional Christian socities were not at all monocultural. I also noticed that polytheistic socieites, like Japan, were very culturally homogenous. And I noticed that some of the world's greatest empires, from the Romans to the Incas, were polytheists, and that many tribal animist societies were brutal and repressive. Now I think that 'monotheism' doesn't even exist beyond the conceptual.
When the master is away the servants will sometimes misbehave. I apologise for my part in any misbehaviour. These are passionate topics.
I'm trying to get to the heart of what I am disagreeing about here. Obviously as a Christian - but not just as a Christian - I take exception to what I see as some unbalanced generalisations here: monotheism versus animism; colonising Christians versus the peaceful 'merging' of 'pre-Christian peoples; violent Christian conversion versus peaceful animist co-operation. This all smacks of an us-and-them case being made; of history being utilised for an end. I can see the Marxism under the surface. There's truth in it, but not enough, and there's too much smoothing out of the awkward bits that don't fit.
So there's that. But I think maybe my problem is a deeper one. It's that I suppose I have always seen myself as an 'indigenous European' (or an 'indigenous Briton' at least; they're not necessarily the same thing.) I am also something of an animist. I am also an Orthodox Christian, who sees Christianity as a formative and indeed 'indigenous' religion. I was mulling this over this morning, when I noticed a comment someone had left under my latest essay over at the Abbey, on an unrelated point:
'Some of my own ancestors lived on the land in the West of Ireland as recently as 1910. They had a Christian and a magical folk worldview which did not have to choose between the two.'
It summed up my itch. This worldview - a kind of animism, a deep connection to place, a sense of 'indigeneity', if you like, a love of the saints and the virgin, a belief in Christ as God Himself made flesh, the taking of communion and the drinking of water from holy wells - this was common here until very recently. It was common all over Europe. It *is* 'European indigenity.' The pre-Christian world is 2000 years past, and we don't even know, really, what those faiths were. Reconstruction is not immersion.
So this is my itch. Most Europeans remain Christian. Are you arguing that we throw away 2000 years of our own culture? That we 'go back' to some form of 'animism' that we don't know and can't relate to? That Christianity cannot also carry within it these things that you (and I) value? That because Christians in the distant past carried out forced conversions their faith is uniquely bad and untrue and unjust (as if the Celts weren't sacrificing humans, or the Anglo-Saxons not blood-eagling their enemies in the name of Woden ... etc)
I'll end by saying something we can agree on, and which this conversation has helped me to understand. You're quite right that when Christianity arrives the Christians will want to prevent worship of other 'gods.' This remains the sticking point. I don't accept that requiring others to adopt your religion is 'a peculiar feature inherent to monotheism itself', as you put it; I've already pointed out that the Roman persecution of Christians happened because Christians would not buy into Roman religious forms.
But is true that while Christians and pagans both see a world full of powers and principalities, beings and spirits, Christianity insists that these beings are not to be worshipped, or even to be worked with (though plenty of Christians try to propitiate some of them anyway). It is an entirely different worldview. Probably there is no compromise. This comes down to an understanding of what truth is, and what the pattern of the universe is. We will probably not agree on this, but we can agree - and we have - not to kill each other about it.
“Are you arguing that we throw away 2000 years of our own culture? That we 'go back' to some form of 'animism' that we don't know and can't relate to?”
Speaking for myself (whilst I interject my opinion into a question directed to Rhyd), this statement misunderstands animism. Unlike modern religions, animism is not based on form; it is based on relatedness. It isn’t, per se, a religion, in the modernist sense. What follows for me is paying quite close attention to how I relate to the beings, seen and unseen, in my locale. I don’t “worship” any of them. I treat them, to the best of my ability (and often fall very short of the mark) with respect and reciprocity.
For a deeper dive into this subject, including issues of indigeneity, cultural appropriation, and the hazards of recreating an imagined past, Rune Rasmussen offers some fine work at his YouTube channel, “Nordic Animism”.
I understand that, and have read and written (and indeed practiced) plenty about animism myself in the past. I've also taught a writing course for many years which in effect teaches animist writing.
But actually we're making the same point. As I said above, I don't think that 'monotheism' and 'animism' are the opposites Rhyd is setting them up to be, and it is not true either that Christians cannot be animist in the sense that you lay out here:
'paying quite close attention to how I relate to the beings, seen and unseen, in my locale. I don’t “worship” any of them. I treat them, to the best of my ability (and often fall very short of the mark) with respect and reciprocity.'
In that sense, I am an animist too. There's great hope in that.
Thanks, Paul. Just a point of clarity which is likely unnecessary: I’m not trying to box you up into any category. I have read much of what you have published and appreciate it deeply. The question of religion is the area where I have not resonated as deeply with you, but because I have resonated with the rest, so to speak (as if they can be separated, lol), I am deeply curious about your perspective on religion. So, thank you for taking the time here. We have one (Greek) Orthodox Church here in Louisville. I’m going to go check it out to see what might make itself known to me. I’ll report back.
No problem! I am not offendable and not looking for agreement. I just can't help myself thinking this through online. It is the heart of the matter.
Good luck with the liturgy! I hope you have a good experience.
Ah, so this last part is what's been really fascinating to me, because Christianity is absolutely also a magical system (or world view) and at least during the middle ages was quite open-minded and even syncretic in its beliefs.
The key to noticing this is the subsequent reformation drive within both the Church and in the Protestant schismatics. Both were attempting to purge out the "pagan" or "superstitious" elements in the Church which had persisted and actually expanded during the medieval period.
It's an extremely expensive book, but historian Valerie Flint's "The Rise of Magic in Early Medieval Europe" gives a really good glimpse into what was happened. Or also Richard Keickhefer's "Magic In the Middle Ages" is also helpful. Both paint a picture of a very magical Christianity that angered zealot bishops and reformation missionaries but was otherwise quite tolerated in monasteries and more independent churches until the 16th century.
And though of course I'm not an anarchist by any means anymore, when one reads how it was always church authorities and missionaries -- and usually from distant lands -- who were the most outraged that everyday Christians still nodded in the direction of burial mounds or standing stones, it starts to look a lot more like the harsher monotheist purges were political attempts to maintain ecclesiastical authority over unruly or self-ruled Christian communities.
The pagan-ness in Catholocism has been an interesting feature to me for much of my life, though I never thought much of it until marrying my wife, who is what I would describe as a progressive non-denominational (maybe even non-doctrinal) Christian.
She compared much of Catholic practice to paganism (the relics, the warding gestures [like the sign of the cross or the spraying of holy water], the pantheon of saints and angels, the prayers--or incantations--beseeching a saint for help, etc), which, she was explaining to me, is why many non-Catholic Christians consider Catholicism unChristian.
But I see these things with my own mother, who is a fundamentalist hardcore Catholic. She has a shrine full of bones allegedly from saints, she has statues and totems for different saints, she wears a scapular, carries holy water with her, and on and on.
As an outsider to religion in general, I do find the resonances carried across and between religions a fascinating feature of various spiritual practices. And I suppose I may be more in agreement with Paul in that these separate things may, in fact, be the same thing.
I know The Mists of Avalon has fallen far out of favor since the world discovered the truth about Marion Zimmer Bradley sexually abusing children, but I think the conclusion of that novel offers a hopeful view towards the Christian/Pagan divide, which is what Paul's comments in this specific thread remind me of.
Thank you for a fascinating article. I had no idea laws on cremation were, and in some places still are, so strict. In the UK the undertaker just gives you a cardboard tube full of the deceased’s ashes. My parents ashes lie under their favourite apple tree in the garden of what is presently my house. I often stop to talk to or think of them.
That's really beautiful.
I do sometimes find it difficult, as a European, to read some of this anti-Christian stuff. It seems predicated, especially this time around, on a leftist us-vs-them model, which offers up a 'indigenous good, Christians bad' argument, which also seems very American. The idea that the 'indigenous' Europeans were pagan/animist/earth-loving (good) but were then 'colonised' by 'Christians' who were imperial/murderous/opressive (bad) relies on a lot of squinting and rewriting of history. It also relies on the notion that Christianity can not be an 'indigenous' European religion. I would be interested to know what is 'indigenous' and what is not. Are European Christians somehow not 'indigenous'? Were they all 'colonised'? Who got to decide that?
I live in Ireland, for example. How did 'the Christians' colonise Ireland? No blood was shed here at all to 'convert' anyone. The most famous evangelist was a freed slave. And who are these 'indigenous Europeans' and where did they come from, and what were their 'pagan' religions? Evidence for human sacrifice (abolished by Christians) is fairly clear in some cultures, and is attested to in Ireland. When the 'indigneous' Anglo-Saxons arrived in (ie invaded) what was to become England, didn't they 'colonise' the Romano-British (human sacrifice also attested to there) and replace the Celtic river gods with the Germanic gods of war and thunder?
I could go on, but as a European former pagan who was later 'colonised' by Christianity I'm seeing a rather different story. A lot of colonisation and brutality, by both Christians and 'pagans', a lot of battles over truth, and no obvious moral/immoral dividing line between the horrible colonising foreign Christians and the virtuous, indigenous, Earth-loving Europeans. Sometimes I worry about where these narratives can lead.
The narrative of “you must believe and act as I do” is likely the most dangerous. The exclusivity of monotheistic religions is terribly problematic, as history has born out, time and time again. I have no problem with Christian (or Muslim or Jewish) people or their beliefs, unless, of course, those beliefs are imposed upon myself or my family. I’m equally comfortable praying to Christ as I am to Frey or to my wise and benevolent ancestors. In and out, us and them, saved and damned.....what a lot of rot.
I appreciate you and your work, Paul. Truly. I look forward to reading each offering you post on Substack. Funny enough, you and Rhyd are two of the three authors to whom I am a paid subscriber (The Convivial Society bring the third, highly recommended). So, I hope you will count me as part of the “loyal opposition” on this matter.
I think therein is the problem, yes. How anyone wishes to honor their dead should be a matter of religious liberty and respected regardless how one feels. Putting to death or otherwise criminalizing those who choose to do differently from what you think should be done, however, is a completely different matter.
Thanks, and I don't really see anyone as 'opposition.' Actually everyone here seems to be arguing from a liberal framework, which is very modern of us. We can all agree that imposing beliefs is a bad thing. Where we differ is in the notion that only the Christians did so. This is hardly the case, as the Aztecs, the Inca, the Anglo-Saxons, the Scots and numerous other 'pagans' who wiped out previous lifeways demonstrate. My problem is the 'Christian bad pagans good' framing. It's no less divisive than the other way round; in fact, it's just a photographic opposite of it. As far as I can see, humans are brutes whoever they worship. At least Christianity gives us a narrow path out of our brutality, however bad we are at following it.
We can probably also agree that the Christian church, in its history, has sometimes - perhjps often - betrayed the teachings of Christ, and that imposing the faith is wrong. You or I or anyone else is free to follow Christ, or not to do so - which was what he himself instructed.
We won't agree on the option of praying to Christ and Frey at the same time. 'Monotheists' are indeed very clear on what should be worshipped (the creator) and what shouldn't (creation). We do also believe there are consequences that come about through turning away from creator and word, and walking in the other direction. Christians are not 'liberal' in that sense.
If that worldview is chosen rather than imposed, we are free to believe it or not to. That's as it should be, I think. But let's also remember that this is a very modern, liberal, secular claim - that we should all 'choose our religion.' And liberalism has also been imposed, by force, by the state, Few people in history were ever 'free' to 'choose' their whole worldview, and people born into some small 'indigenous' tribe would have just as many restrictions on burial, worship and life in general as European Christians. My problem with Rhyd's framing is how skewed it is. No study of any 'indigenous' culture will reveal it to be any less restrictive than European Christendom.
I think you make a false equivalency between “pagan” and “indigenous” and use them interchangeably. I agree with your statements about pagans, but I do not think they are valid for most indigenous societies. They do not choose belief systems. As you rightly note, that is a modernist phenomenon. Indigenous cultures are a result of relationships with Land and the other beings in that local community. What we call religion is simply part of their relating.
I also understand what monotheists believe. I have a head full of education by priests and am well acquainted with the theologies of the Abrahamic religions. It’s the exclusivity that I reject. I suppose that is much of the theology. What I am left with when that stuff is out of the way is Love. I think and feel and experience Love as foundational. Theology that supports exclusivity is anti-relational which precludes Love, the ultimate message of Christ. Good enough for me. I like Frey, too (I’m a former farmer and current horticulturist).
As for the “loyal opposition” comment, perhaps I might have chosen better wording. I’m not in allegiance with any group that is in opposition to you or Christianity; I just meant that I appreciate your perspectives, but I disagree with this one. My disagreement is in good faith, not trying to hurt you.
I didn't mean to make that equivalency. I was rather trying to respond to what I saw as that equivalency on here. I've always had a problem with the word 'indigenous', hence the scare quotes. I'm not really sure what it means, and I'm not sure either that there is an agreed definition. Usually it seems to be a political claim, from whatever perspective. I am still trying to work out whether or not it is a useful word, or whether it raises more questions than answers.
Anyway, my wider point was that 'indigenous' people, in Europe or elsewhere (if by that we mean 'original' people, or 'people who have been there a long time' or 'people who live lives close to nature' - this is the problem...) could also be Christian. Or indeed something else. There is no necessity for them to be 'pagan' (another tricky word, one designed by Christians to generalise about everyone else.)
The claim on here is that 'indigenous Europeans' were naturally 'pagan' until they were 'colonised' by invading Christians, whose faith is somehow foreign to us 'Europeans' abnd should be thrown off. It's a worldview I used to share, and it's a story that can be constructed from a certain perspective. But it's not anything like the full truth, and my attempted point here is that the relationship with place, land and community you talk about can also be a Christian one, and often is. I have seen that where I live in Ireland, whose Christianity has been deeply 'indigenous' here for centuries. It once was in England too. I would also argue that Christianity is in fact an 'indigenous' European faith; the one that has created the Europe we know, and the values and the mythos of the people who live in it.
I'm currently reading John Moriarty's 'Dreamtime', which is intriguing and deep for anyone interested in this conversation from an Irish perspective. Moriarty seeks a chthonic, Irish, land-based Christian mythos. It's worth a read.
As for 'exclusivity' - well, I think actually that all 'religious' worldviews are 'exclusive' in their own way. A tribal 'pagan' spirituality, for example, will exclude those outside the tribe, who don't live in that way or come from that place. I can't be Choctaw or Innu or Yanomami. Followers of Christ believe he is the second person of the Trinity, and thus the manifestation of the divine creator within time and space. We don't believe this about Frey, and thus, in that sense, the claim is certainly exclusive. But again, I think the notion that we can pick and choose our gods from a dozen different pantheons is very modern.
All the best,
Paul
Thank you very much for taking the time to flesh this out. It gives me much to ponder. I wish I had the time and energy to respond properly in a way that honors this topic and both our perspectives. There is so much to discuss! If only I could sit down with Paul and Rhyd and the other fine folks “here” and share a pint as we hammer away and love one another all the same. If you’re ever in Kentucky.......😉
That would be a very excellent real-world conversation, so much better than this strange, web-enabled version. God willing!
I replied at length in a separate comment because there are many and it's hard to follow. Just as a note, though, the last line about picking and choosing gods being very modern is actually quite the opposite. Quite a bit has been written about the "additive" nature of animist and polytheist beliefs in the ancient past. This feature irked Christian missionaries to no end in Africa particularly, as "converted" tribes would just add Jesus to their shrines. Several European bishops also complained of (and issued rather violent edicts against) this same problem occurring in the Iberian peninsula, where people would visit both pagan shrines and Christian churches in the same day. They had merely "added" Jesus, just as happened in Santeria and other syncretic religions in the Americas.
That's a fair point. And actually it's what got Christians burned, tortured and persecuted by the Roman polytheists in the early years. The Romans were happy for them to add 'Chrestus' to their pantheon, but not to empty their pantheon of everyone else. The Christians explained, then as now, that this isn't how it works.
Personally I can't see much difference between what the Romans did to the Christians and what the Christians later did to the Romans (and other pagans.) It's religious conflict. Christians have no monopoly on trying to ensure the supremacy of their faith. But I'll write more when I have time.
I'm not sure that monotheistic religions are the only ones being exclusive when it comes to questions of what to do with the dead. Many animistic tribal societies have/had very clear protocols on how to treat the dead, whether that's cremation or sky burial or mummification or eating the deceased's brains. There were no 'options' in these societies because proper treatment of the dead was so closely tied in to the well-being of the tribe - spirits must be appeased, order kept. As such, this idea that people should be able to choose what to do with their dead seems to me to be rather a modern one which is historically rather unusual.
You make a great point, Deb re: no options due to necessities. Intact cultures are deeply related
Oops.....are deeply related to the land on which they live. The practices of the culture emerge out of the necessities of living in a particular landscape. To paraphrase Pat McCabe/Woman Stands Shining: Culture is the Earth expressing Herself through human beings in a specific place.
I think this is very interesting, and true. But I think there's another layer too. Again, I always come back to the cultures I know, England and Ireland, both of which are very old nations, which were Christian from their foundation. That Christianity, at the local level (before the Reformation, anyway) was deeply woven into land-based life. The seasonal festivals, the pilgrim routes, the holy wells, the shrines, the blessing of waters and crops, and much more. And in the Orthodox east, which I am getting to know, the same is true, and still persists. I have visited Romania a few times in the last two years, and this deeply land-based Christianity is there too. It's not something dropped from the sky onto an 'indigenous' culture, but rather something that has created that culture.
And this is related in fact to Christianity's lack of the 'exclusivity' you talked about above. Because the faith is universal - the creator made and loves all humans, Christian or otherwise - the love of that creator can be woven into any culture on Earth. It can also, of course, be imposed by force by idiots who think such an imposition is 'Christian.' But that's hardly the whole story, and if it was, Christianity would have died a long time ago.
This adds another layer to the problem of monotheistic religions which do not fall under this definition. They are belief systems without connection to a land base. The belief system is something one adheres to, not something that grows organically out of relationship with the Land. Most indigenous cultures have no concept of religion. What looks like religion to the Western eye is just part of relating to the world around indigenous people.
Great comment and one I generally agree with as the religions stand today. Interestingly, though, the biblical depiction of early Judaism seems to imply a different relationship between the Israelites and their God YHWH. The Jewish God was not understood as disconnected from land so much as being regarded as lord of ALL the land - the entire earth, and all that is in it. This understanding is found throughout the old testament. Famously, God tells his first human creations to 'guard and keep' the earth, i.e. he specifically gives them a land-based purpose in life. John Walton in his work on Genesis and ancient middle eastern cultures shows quite convincingly that this command should be understood in religious terms: as priests are called to guard and keep the temple/the sacred so humans are called to guard and keep the earth. i.e. the temple and its works are seen as a microcosm of what the entire earth is: a temple to the creator God with humans placed in it as his priests.
It wasn't until the Greek philosophical influence with its dualism and disconnection from nature that both Judaism and Christianity began to loose this creation based understanding of our human purpose in life. Maybe now would be a good time to bring it back?
I think it's quite difficult to read anything of the history of Christianization in Europe and elsewhere-- even from official church sources -- and in any way get the sense that people adopted the new religion of their own free will. If that had been the case, there'd have been no need to order the deaths of those choosing to bury their dead as their ancestors had done so, or to burn heretics (human sacrifice) alive on stakes, or to destroy shrines and other holy places, or to beat and torture those who resisted. Not peace but a sword, as Jesus is reported to have said.
You've accurately identified the leftist framing here though missed where it is. Pre-woke leftists, if they did anything of worth, correctly noticed that what the dominant order propagandizes as willing conversion (to capitalism or to Christianity) in all cases ignores and actively erases all the physical, political, social, and spiritual violence enacted to convince people to "willingly" convert.
I don't agree on this one. Reading the sources will give you a very mixed picture of what conversion was. For example, between St Paul and St Patrick the church carried out no recorded missionary work at all, and it had no power on its side to force anyone to follow it. In fact, it was actively persecuted by the polytheist pagans of the Roman imperial state, who burnt Christians as living candles, threw them to lions, crucified them and tortured them by the thousand for refusing to burn incense to Caesar. Yet in that same time period, the faith spread widely, throughout north Africa, the middle east, India and southern Europe. Clearly there was some other reason apart from brutality and oppression.
When, later, the faith came to northern and Western Europe it tended to spread, in its early years, through conversion of kings and leaders, who would then spread the faith to their people. This was how society worked - from the top-down. A king, whether Christian or 'pagan', would expect his people to follow his faith. But there are many other examples - I've quoted Ireland for one - in which Christianity seems to have spread from the bottom up. There were reasons people embraced it in place of what came before: and the brutality of what came before was sometimes among them.
Nobody would deny the forced conversions you talk about, or indeed the many un-Christian things the church has done in its various alliances with power. Certainly not me; I condemn them. But when you present this as the full story, and play down or ignore the many equal horrors carried out by 'pagans', you skew the record. It's not as if the leadership in some Anglo-Saxon ham c.500AD would have said to the people, 'we think you should worship Woden, but hey, if you choose not to, that's cool too.' And when you represent 'indigenous Europeans' as naturally 'pagan' and 'Christians' as some sort of foreign, colonial imposition, you are both imposing a modern American woke narrative (bad whites vs good BIPOCS), and coming close to a dodgy god-and-soil narrative, and I don't think you actually believe in either of those things.
Where I will agree with you is that 'monotheisms' call for worship to directed towards the creating One rather than the created Many. This is the fundamental difference between 'monotheists' and 'polytheists' and it's not really a bridgeable gap. But if we all have the choice about who to worship, then the burden is on us to get it right. When Jesus talked about not bringing peace but a sword, this is what he was talking about: the divisions, even within families, that these competing understandings of divinity would create.
How is Christianity 'white'? It came from the Middle East, like Judaism and Islam. It's not as though the Europeans of the time invited the early Christian missionaries. We're the Europeans of the time not indigenous somehow? Are only Africans allowed to be called indigenous because humans first evolved there? Early Europeans were clearly pagan as the word means 'country dweller' and there weren't many towns in Europe before the Romans arrived and started building them. Plus the early Europeans were clearly Polytheist, meaning 'many gods', as there is evidence of the veneration of many different gods. How can such limited creatures as humans actually know who or what was the creator of everything anyway? We humans tend to think we're very clever but to claim to know for absolute certain who or what actually created everything seems to be pushing it a bit.
I didn't say Christianity was white; I was referring to the way the woke left in the US currently sets up a distinction between bad white 'colonists' and virtuous 'indigenous' people, and pointing out that this can't be applied to Europe. You're right: Christianity is a middle eastern religion, which had followers in Africa and Asia long before it come to western and northern Europe. Europeans can be as 'indigenous' as anyone else, but I don't accept that there was ever such a thing as a 'European indigenous religion', nor that 'indigenous' Europeans can't be Christian.
As for what we can know - well, we can certainly agree that there is a lot we can never know on this Earth, including the nature of God. But then by the same token, we could apply to 'the gods' of the polytheists.' Humility in the face of our ignorance is definteily a good starting point for all of us.
You did seem to be saying that Christianity was white as you but it on the same side of your divide as you put 'white'; with the 'bad, white colonists', and let's be honest, they were bad (for the people already living there and the land and it's wildlife), they were white, they were colonists, and they were Christians. European people didn't have a European indigenous religion, they had many European indigenous religions, or do you think Europeans had no religious ideas until Christianity came along to 'civilize' them? It's that kind of attitude which makes me wonder a bit about the practice of humility amongst Christians; the idea that they couldn't possibly be mistaken. Your use of quotation marks for words like pagan, European indigenous religion, and indigenous Europeans, leads me to think you don't think these really exist. How would you like people to write 'christian' every time they wrote it?
I am an 'indigenous European' and so were my ancestors. I've written rather a lot about those old faiths. I am also a Christian. There is no contradiction. But you seem to be misunderstanding me quite powerfully, so I'll leave it there.
I think most people when they think of Christianity particularly in Western Europe think post-council of Trent. So reactionary Catholics and puritan Protestants. Remember this is when the Witch burnings and inquisition was at it’s height. Rhyds’s review of Caliban and the Witch is useful here. Actual medieval Christianity was a much more colourful affair. Just have a read of ‘the golden legend’ or see what actually happened in religious festivals in those times. It was a Christianity much more immersed in the fantastic and miraculous. Agreed they did have there religious wars (think Crusades etc) but these seem more of a cover for power politics (nothing ever changes). Maybe this aspect of Christianity had more attraction than we might think among pagans. I’d prefer a bit of penance over the spread eagle ;).
All I can think is that you are free to not read this newsletter. At this point you should be well aware of what the gist is here and if you find it difficult, you can relieve yourself of that difficulty.
I hadn't realised that we were only supposed to read essays by people we agreed with about everything. I'm certainly glad that's not how all my readers behave towards me.
"Supposed to"? What does that even mean?
It's English. A proto-Indo-European Germanic language spoken by indigenous Europeans ;-)
What a childish reply
The English sense of humour isn't for everyone.
Constructive criticism is healthy! Your comment is somewhat amusing to me since I actually found Rhyd's work via Paul's recommendation a while back. I assume many others did as well.
I suppose you are also free not to read or respond to any of the comments here. I, for one, wish to hear different perspectives. Thankfully, I have no doubt that Mr. Kingsnorth will continue to participate here.
Excellent and informative piece. Olly is right to observe there are few rules around scattering ashes here in the UK, although sometimes i wonder if there there should be a few more i.e. It's not that uncommon (in the busy Peak District at least) to find piles of gritty scatterings along with impromptu mini-shrines in popular sites and 'picnic spots' - which can be touching, grimly amusing or disconcerting - especially on a windy day. The death forests sound like an excellent move. Overall I'm with you Rhyd in that dealing with our dead should be a choice for those left living irrespective of faith. The 'Godless' libertarian approach is playing out in the UK right now, for better or worse.
I have my tree picked out in the redwoods of the Santa Cruz mountains of California and my son is delegated to deliver the ashes. Oh, the horrors of humanity from bones stacked in churches to the skull rack containing thousands of skulls at the base of the Aztec’s chief sacrificial pyramid. At least Christianity is supposed to make do with only one human sacrifice, though when the church got its hands on political power it couldn’t resist the temptation of the expiatory delights of capital punishment. Thank God that power has for the most part be removed. Thomas Cahill, author of How the Irish Saved Civilization, thinks the Irish embraced Christ because they found a better deal than what they had in their religion, and it seems from ancient records the Celtic Christian saints were handy with miracles, out magicking the competition.
Fascinating. A subject I’ve increasingly become curious about 🙏🏼❤️🩹🙏🏼
Thank you for the fascinating article. I do like the idea of scattering the ashes under trees or into flowing water as we did with my parents in law in the UK. I am not even sure if that was legal at the time. The bit I have real problems with is the actual cremation. Not that I would be afraid that my dead body could feel the heat but the thought that it would be processed by an industrial unit, frankly horrifies me. I actually believe it would be hard to insist that you would not want to be cremated as I believe a buriel and a plot would cost a fair bit.
I had no idea there was so much difficulty about burial in parts of Europe. Over here in the US we imagine you to be less religiously strict, but on the subject of death we're currently having small arguments over much more exotic ways of treating human remains, from composting to liquefaction, under theologies ranging from neo/pseudo-paganism to questions of efficiency and utility to the machine. Hah.