Glen Gordon lets go of the Pagan umbrella

When John asked me to revise my old blog post from PostPagan about why I do not identify as being Neopagan, I was intimidated by the idea. Fifteen years ago, I identified as a Neopagan and began to share a naturalist critique of it. (This is when there was no discourse about naturalism and Neopaganism.) I will admit this hostility is one reason I disassociated with the term, but not the single reason. Over the years, I’ve shared these evolving views. The last incarnation was my personal blog, PostPagan, and is the reason I began writing for HP. Because I am a bit of a hermit, both in person and online, I rarely post comments, but do regularly read the articles of my fellow writes both here and at No Unsacred Places. I also read the Neopagan columns and blogs at Patheos. I enjoy finding what naturalist-inclined Neopagans are discussing. Being a religious naturalist and religious humanist, I find I share some common ground with this exciting emerging form of Neopaganism; however, for a long time, I’ve no longer self-identified as “Pagan”.

Instead of sharing my critique of Neopaganism, which I have done extensively on a blog that only search bots seemed to read, I felt it more helpful to share the specific differences I find between myself and Neopaganism. Self-identification as Pagan is a recent phenomen beginning in the mid 1960’s¹. Before I begin, I would like to state that I consider any modern religious or spiritual practice that identifies with paganism to be Neopagan. This is because the prefix neo- is specific to meaning modern or contemporary. I insist that Neopaganism is the most descriptive and succinct way to distinguish the modern phenomenon from ancient paganism.

From my observations, Neopagnism is a broad categorical term covering many specific religions nested within another grouping of religions which share common sources but are diverse in practice and thought, akin to terms like Abrahamic religion or Oriental religion. I find three distinct religious movements underneath the large umbrella of Neopaganism which are diverging further apart and deserve academic and cultural attention on their own. They are as follows:

Wiccinate spirituality: this is the most prevalent form of Neopaganism influenced by Gerald Gardner’s tradition, but includes adaptations by Alex Sanders, and variations of Robert Cochrane and Joseph Wilson’s visions of modern witchcraft². This category also includes Neo-Wicca, an individualistic (often solitary) synchronism of Wiccan themes with the New-Age, Goddess worship, and Feminism, beginning with the once controversial writings of Scott Cunningham³.

Neo-Druidry: While Wiccinate spirituality became formalized in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Neo-Druidry’s originates with the 18th century writers exploring themes of the druids found within classical literature⁴. As an attempt to reclaim a Welsh national identity, Iolo Morganwg’s founded the Gorsedd of Bards in 1792, along with the writing the Barddas which he claimed he translated from older texts, but were in fact his own inventions⁵. Both events are pivotal in the emergence of Neo-Druidry. During the 1960’s, the Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids (OBOD) was founded and influenced by Morganwg’s Gorsedd and Barddas⁶. Meanwile, independent of OBOD, the Reform Druids of North America was formed by students at Carleton College in protest to the school’s requirement of church participation on Sundays⁷. In 1983, Isaac Bonewits founded Ár nDraíocht Féin (ADF), translated from Gaelic as “Our Own Druidry”⁸. Over time, these organizations have been influenced by each other, yet maintain strong distinctions between each other. And even though they have had some influence on Wiccinate spirituality, Neo-Druidry maintains its own philosophy and liturgy apart from other forms of Neopaganism.

Reconstructional polytheism: One some level, this movement owes a lot to Isaac Bonewits and ADF, as early examples of attempts in recreating pre-Christian religions from historic and archaeological evidence⁹. Where ADF casts a wide net around Indo-European religion, Reconstructional polytheism focuses upon specific historical cultures such as pre-Christian Celts, Romans, Hellenic, and Germanic tribes. Reconstructional Polytheism is experiencing substantial growth during the current decade with its emphasis on research and cultural context, and includes Celtic reconstructionism, the many traditions of Germanic Heathenism, Baltic Romuva, Greek Hellenism, and Latin Religio Romana to name a few.

This is not to say there isn’t overlap between the three. I mention the above distinctions because it is important to understand the variety and diversity within Neopaganism. In the 21st century, both naturalism and animism have become emerging forces within all three movements. In particular, Neo-Druidy has been quick to incorporate these views into its faith. If there where to be a minimal definition which ties these movements together it is that they each incorporate themes of pre-Christian religions of Europe and Mediterranean cultures, but diverge in religious philosophy and liturgy.

However, regardless of my education and training in all three movements, and despite their verity and diversity, I hold fundamental positions which have me feeling out of place during Neopagan ceremonies, and gatherings like PantheaCon. For many years, I no longer incorporate themes from ancient paganism. Furthermore, there are key points of my religious philosophy, spirituality, and practice which, to my knowledge, fall outside of expressions of Neopaganism:

• My polytheism does not engage with deities from ancient cultural narratives from Europe and the Mediterranean. My deities are not engendered nor anthropmorphized. Instead, I blend process theology, transpersonal psychology, and deism into what I have called naturalistic polytheism, and now label process polydeism. This perspective doesn’t conform to the devotional, metaphorical, and pantheist forms of polytheism debated within Neopaganism^10 11.
• I have strict ethics about cultural appropriation that would make Reconstructional polytheists uncomfortable. These ethics extend beyond cultural context to ecological, geographic and temporal context.
• I do not practice any form of the occult, including tarot, astrology, and magick. I acknowledge the occult is not prominent in every form of Neopaganism, but its influence is so widespread and noticeable that I felt it important to include in this list.
• The structure of my practice is land-centered and directly influenced by the local ecology of the place I live. This results in ceremonies and costumes which are foreign to any Neopagan I have shared them with.

If there is a term which I feel can include these differences it is Bioregional Animism, which I have written about in length on my previous blog. However, Bioregional Animism is not as much a religious term as a broad world-view which can be applied equally to Neopaganism as it can to Christianity, Buddhism, Atheism, et cetera. The other term I have used in the past is PostPagan, which was the title of my blog, a term that was intended to be more humorous then anything else. Through many years, my personal practice and reflection evolved into something meaningful to me, regardless what name I or anyone else give it.