Hat tip to Gundek.
Posts Tagged ‘Anglicanism’
Posted in Religion, tagged Almshouse, Anglicanism, Bafflement, Bishop, Church, Comedy, Conversion, Darkness, Daventry, Divine, Entitlement, Eternity, Gundek, Hell, Humanism, Humor, Hunger, Internet, Lord, Marriage, Mitchell and Webb, Peace, Peasantry, Philosophy, Religion, Satan, Seeker, Sketch Comedy, Spirituality, That Mitchell and Webb Look, Theology, Vestry on February 5, 2014 | Leave a Comment »
Posted in Spirituality, tagged Ancient Order of Druids in America, Anglican, Anglicanism, AODA, Baghavad Gita, Balance, Celebration, Celtic Mythology, Celtic Paganism, Christianity, Divination, Divine, Divinity, Druid, Druidcraft, Druidism, Druidry, Environmentalism, Gobbledygook, God, Gods, Greek Mythology, Green Spirituality, Harmony, Hellenic Polytheism, Hellenic Reconstructionism, Hierarchy, Hinduism, John Michael Greer, Latitudinarianism, Legitimacy, Libation, Meditation, Mormonism, Music, Mysticism, Nature, Neo-Paganism, Neo-Pythagoreanism, Neopaganism, New Age, New Ageism, Norse Mythology, Numerology, OBOD, Order of Bards Ovates and Druids, Organized Religion, Orthodox, Orthodoxy, Paganism, Philip Carr-Gomm, Poetry, Polytheism, Polytheist Reconstructionism, Practice, Prayer, Reconstruction, Religion, Revival Druidry, Ritual, Sacrifice, Seasons, Semantics, Spirituality, Theology, Universalism, Validity, Wicca on April 7, 2009 | 9 Comments »
In a previous post I talked about my troubles with boxed religion. My conclusions were somewhat contradictory, but I think they boil down to this: I want to feel like what I am doing is valid and legitimate, and I want some kind of structure to help me know how to practice my spirituality. I hunger for the divine in a way that necessitates some action, some drawing closer on my part. Navel-gazing and thinkin’ ’bout gods by itself just isn’t going to do the trick–I need a practical element to my spirituality.
So the question becomes, how do I get those things–practical spirituality and a feeling of legitimacy and validity–without also having to deal with the suffocation, claustrophobia, mental revision, and inevitable shame and embarassment that seem to be inescapable by-products of boxed religion.
One thing I know for relatively certain, is that my personal theology doesn’t appear to match any currently existing and widespread theology, so no complete boxed religion will do–no matter which one I pick I will wind up feeling the need to change what I believe in order ot be orthodox. I know I shouldn’t, but that’s not the issue. I will. So then, where do I get the things I am craving out of religion? How do I practice a religion that’s out of the box but still stay focused, on track (even if the track meanders and changes), and maybe most importantly for me, feels valid and legitimate?
One possible route that I have been seriously considering is the Ancient Order of Druids in America. The AODA’s spiritual practices don’t involve a specific theology, although they have theological implications: they are earth-centered, they skew strongly towards some kind of (neo)pagan approach, they are meditative and contemplative, and they tend to favor some ostensibly new age stuff like magic, divination, etcetera. There appears to be a strong tendency toward Celtic paganism (no surprise there; we’re talking Druidry after all), but with an openness to different “flavors,” even if it means going (shudder) eclectic.
The thing is, I have been interested in the AODA for a long time, but I have recognized that it onvolves in some ways a spiritual skeleton, a kind of box with nothing in it. While I have no doubt that you could practice Revival Druidry without any further theological baggage, and int he process develop a strong earth-centered green spirituality of your own, I have always felt that I wanted something more to fill the box with. I wanted some kind of mystical component, a catalyst even, that had specific theological and spiritual implications to flesh out the practical skeleton of the AODA’s approach. From that perspective, I have everything I need to begin. Granted, it still means cobbling things together a bit, and I admit that the spiritual experiences I have had do not necessarily point directly toward Druidry (it’s not even one of the implications I mentioned in my last post). At the same time, Revival Druidry is completely compatible with what I have been doing so far.
So I want to go through a list of advantages and disadvantages of choosing Revival Druidry as a spiritual path. I will start with the advantages.
First, Druidry is green. It is earth-centered. It is a spiritual practice that recognizes the power of the earth, has roots in the living earth, and draws strength form protecting nature and the environment. I haven’t necessarily shared this before, but I have long felt a spiritual connection to the earth. I feel recharged (and less crazy) by being outside. I think there is wisdom and balance to be gained by being more connected to the natural world, and that is an aspect of spiritual existence that I feel compelled to explore. Maybe I will go into more detail in a future post, but suffice it to say for now that this is important enough for me to make it actually be a big problem with Hellenic Recon Polytheism, which is not connected ot the earth enough for my tastes.
Second, Druidry provides a box, but not a claustrophobic one. Even though the kind of Druidry I want to practice is connected to an organization, the organization does not claim special authority to dictate to me what I should and should not be doing, and what is acceptable for me to practice. The is partly due to a general neopagan norm of live and let live, but it also has specific roots for the AODA in Anglican latitudinarianism, as the AODA’s historical roots go back not to ancient druids, but openly and honestly back to the Druid revivalists of several centuries ago, most of whom started out as Anglicans in the midst of a growing trend toward Latitudinarianism–an allowance within Anglicanism to admit diverse theologies but come together in practice. So Revival Druidry provides direction but is not forceful. And the Anglican connection, which comes out in a lot of other practices, especially in the AODA’s meditative approach, doesn’t make me cry either.
Third, as a kind of corollary to the second above, Revival Druidry is a big enough box to contain all of the disparate spiritual elements I have swirling around in my head and heart. It certainly can accomodate all of the different kinds of western mythology that I feel drawn towards–Greek, Celtic, and Norse. In fact, it is a context that will allow me to move around and through those three diffferent mythic and polytheistic contexts as my personal theology continues to grow, develop, and solidify. (Hmm–three is a number that is significant and sacred in Druidry) Druidry is also definitely expansive enough to encomepass a cosmology that is based on the Baghavad Gita. But better still, Revival Druidry’s box is big enough to account for all of the different possible ramifications of my spiritual experiences. Revival Druidry is compatible with a green, mystical Anglican Christianity if that’s where I ultimately end up (and if I end up Christian, I highly suspect that that’s the kind of Christian I will be), and certainly with the male/female archetypical divinities that I might be dealing with (DruidCraft–the fusion of Revival Druidry and Wicca–is already fairly established and has a major advicate in the form of Philip Carr-Gomm, one of the most important voices in modern Druidry and the head of the British Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids). Moreover, practicing Revival Druidry in no way excludes the practices that have so far become important in my paganism: prayer, libations, and small sacrifices to the gods.
Fourth, Revival Druidry practice involves things I want to be doing anyway. Seasonal celebrations, meditation, poetry, music, divination. It wraps all of these together in a whole, centers it all on environmental spirituality, and interlaces the whole thing with a healthy respect for the gods and a default polytheistic worldview. There’s a lot of good juju in that box, really. I might be on to something here after all.
On the other hand, I have some concerns with the AODA as an organization and with Revival Druidry as practice that I feel I need to address and think about.
First, the AODA is an organization that is in the process of rebuilding. There are not a lot of members, and that means not a lot of community support. The flip side to this is that it being a part of the movement means being able to help build something with a lot of great potential. A connected oncern is the place of John Michael Greer at the head of the organization. Don’t get me wrong-I think Greer is absolutely awesome, a prophetic voice who deserves more attention than he gets. But is the AODA just Greer’s fan club, or can it be an organization that stands on his two feet without him? The AODA’s not a personality cult, and Greer doesn’t really play that part, but is it basically the same thing for practical purposes? Of course, on the other hand, practicing AODA-style Revival Druidry doesn’t actually mean I have to be a part of any organization whatsoever, so the organizational concerns may be a moot point.
Second, I don’t know how comfortable I actually am with the idea of calling myself a “druid.” I am convinced by Greer’s rationale that, as descendants of the Druid Revival, modern Druids have every right to claim the name–not because they are descended from ancient paleopagan Druids, but because they are descended from mesopagan revivalists who called themselves “Druids.” The term Druid has been used to refer to revivalists for three hundred years now, and (in Greer’s words) it is easier than calling the movement “British Universalist Post-Anglican Latitudinarian Pantheist Neo-Pythagorean Nature Spirituality.” Nevertheless, the idea of calling myself a Druid seems, well, kind of silly. Again, maybe I am making a mountain out of a molehill. I am in charge of how I label myself, after all. I can practice Druidry and even join the AODA and call myself whatever I want. Maybe I would be the most compfortable thinking of myself as a Pagan who practices Druidry, or something like that. Or maybe thinking of it in terms of “Revival Druid” instead of just “Druid” would seem less ludicrous and more intellectually honest. Semantic niceties aside, the way I label myself and the way I construct my own identity is really important to me.
Third, Revival Druidry has a lot of New Age ideas built in, and I am suspicious of New Ageism. I don’t think I really believe in “magick,” or feel like it is an important or even desired part of my spiritual life. I don’t believe in auras or moving energy around at will. I think a lot of that stuff is kind of flaky gobbledygook, and by entering a movement full of that kind of thing, I risk being associated with it or being seen myself as a New Ager, or alternately getting frustrated and fed up with what I see as flaky, non-valid spiritual beliefs and practices. Nevertheless, this is not a concern that is unique to Revival Druidry, but is one that I will face everywhere in the Neo-Pagan world. Perhaps if I was content to be a hardcore Reconstructionist, or was happy to act and practice in total solitude, I wouldn’t have to worry about it. But I am not and I don’t necessarily. So as long as I think of myself in terms of paganism, New Age is always going to be on the radar, whether I am involved with Revival Druidry or not.
Fourth, the big one, is that athough it may be the perfect box for me, it’s still a box. This is really my problem, not Druidry’s problem, but the chances of me pushing myself towards whatever passes for Orthodoxy in Revival Druid circles despite my contrary beliefs, intuitions, and desired practices, is really high. Orthodoxy is basically bred into me–I grew up Mormon after all, and it is really hard to root out that kind of thinking, especially when it is more of a knee-jerk inclination anyway. I naturally lean towards obsessive orthodoxy in whatever I do, regardless of whether it actually makesme happy or bears any kind of fruit in my life. But this is going to be a problem wherever I go, no matter what direction I decide on, probably even if I make up my own spiritual direction whole-cloth.
So, what does all of this mean? Honestly, I think my reasons to practice Revival druidry outweigh my reasons not to. And when it comes down to brass tacks, Druidry is something that has attracted me for a long time. I have hesitated before, but never because I thought I might be unsatisfied with Druidry. I either felt held back because of a hesitation to move in any spiritual direction without some kind of mystical catalyst to hang it all on, or I have held back because I thought I might need to set Druidry aside in favor of some other Orthodoxy. And now both of those reasons have evaporated: I have had a decidedly pagan mystical encounter with the gods, and I have recognized that Revival Druidry will fit almost any spiritual direction I have a reaosnable chance of ultimately settling down on, assuming I can keep my Orthodoxy reflex in check. In fact, practicing Revival Druidry may wind up being the perfect cure for said reflex, assuming I don’t wind up jerking my knee towards orthodoxy in Druidry itself.
Posted in Politics, Religion, tagged Anglican Communion, Anglicanism, Blogging, California, Controversy, Gay Marriage, Homosexuality, Hypocrisy, Internet, Latter-day Saints, Law, LDS, Money, Mormonism, Politics, Proposition 8, Religion, Smokescreen on September 26, 2008 | 4 Comments »
A pretty good chunk of the Mormon, ex-Mormon, and New Order Mormon interweb-world seems to be focusing on California’s Proposition 8 right now (in short, there’s a referendum on the ballot to illegalize same-sex marriage, the LDS Church is actively supporting it and has called on members in California to commit their time and money in its support). This is not very apolitical for a Church that claims to stay out of politics (no surprise, the “we stay out of politics” crap is really just a smokescreen to keep the Church from having to answer politically when it does not want to).
Whatever. I know it’s a really big deal, for gays in California, for gays in the Church, and for Mormons everywhere. But I wish people would take a break and talk about something else.
Posted in Religion, tagged Anglican Communion, Anglicanism, Art, Bible, Colonialism, conversation, Covenant, environment, Environmentalism, Episcopal Church, GAFCON, God, Homosexuality, Lambeth, Liturgy, Music, Poetry, Politics, Post-colonialism, Religion, schism, Spirituality, Theology on July 11, 2008 | 2 Comments »
Everyone’s writing about the big issues in the communion: homosexuality, schism, Lambeth, GAFCON, the global South, post-colonialism, the covenant, etc
These are a big deal, sure, but in the meantime, nobody is really writing about, well, Jesus. Or anything else. It’s not that I expect people to pretend that the big happenings aren’t happening, but as I’m more and more certain that Anglicanism is the direction for me, I’m eager to engage in conversations about theology, about spirituality, about God, about prayer, about Church history, about the Bible, about liturgy, about Christian life, about the environment, about poverty, about war, about government. About poetry, art, mythology, history, music, anything. There’s so much that is informed by faith that is worth talking about.
Instead, it’s all Church politics, all the time. It’s disappointing. Maybe Anglicans, especially in countries like mine where church membership is low and dropping, need to hear this: nobody’s going to want to join a church when the only issue is internecine politics. Even those who do, like me, are finding it difficult to stay enthusiastic.
Posted in Music, Religion, tagged Anglicanism, Atheism, Belief, Blogging, Brainwashing, C. S. Lewis, Christianity, Church, Episcopal Church, Faith, Hope, Literature, Liturgy, Mormonism, Music, Religion, Theology, Thought on November 8, 2007 | 28 Comments »
I know I’ve been over this time and again, but it’s been on my mind for weeks, so I’m going to blog about it. I’m just not sure what to do, say, or believe about religion.
I like Christianity. I find it moving, relevant, hopeful, important. I like the Bible, I like Jesus, I like the richness of Christian theology, I attend an Episcopal church and I like the liturgy. But I just don’t know if I believe in Christianity. I don’t know how to. I know if I totally immersed myself in Christianity- literature, music, thought, etc., that all my doubts would fade, but that’s exactly what I did with Mormonism. It’s not because the thing I’m busying myself with is actually true, but because I’m so busy with it that I get wrapped up in it and stop questioning it. I’m unwilling to do that again because I believe it is a kind of self-brainwashing, and because I know it doesn’t necessarily last.
I like Mere Christianity, but I have major problems with almost every Christian denomination in practice (and in theology). And even when I find an unobjectionable denomination (i.e. Anglicanism), I still am left unsure if I really believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and that his life and what he allegedly did are significant to me as anything other than a historical curiosity. I don’t want to be an atheist, but I’m afraid that leaving Mormonism has left me unable to deal with religion. Even if I was sure I wanted to be Christian, I wouldn’t be sure of where to start.
O God, our King, by the resurrection of your Son Jesus Christ on the first day of the week, you conquered sin, put death to flight, and gave us the hope of everlasting life: Redeem all our days by this victory; forgive our sins, banish our fears, make us bold to praise you and to do your will; and steel us to wait for the comsummation of your kingdom on the last great Day; through the same Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
-from The Book of Common Prayer