The Musings of a Confused Man

I’ve been listening to Frank Peretti’s “This Present Darkness” on tape again. It’s a highly enjoyable book for the most part. Some of the theological implications make me wonder at times, though. I suspect part of that is just because I’m not a Christian. But a lot of it even makes me wonder how well it fits to a Christian perspective.

Take for example the one part I listened to on my way to work this morning. It takes place shortly after the church votes (but just barely) to keep Hank as their pastor. Hank and his wife, Mary, are sitting together in the kitchen of “Grandma” Edith Duster. Edith is one of Hank’s biggest supporters, and she spends much of this particular conversation encouraging Hank. In it, she makes the comment that if Hank wasn’t where God wanted him to be, he wouldn’t be accomplishing as much as he can. The more that I think about this, the more it seems like “divining” the will of God from mere circumstance. And to be honest, that strikes me as an odd, fickle, and possibly dangerous thing to do.

Back in my college years, I remember learning about the concept of “fleecing.” It’s a term used in certain Christian circles to describe a certain way of “testing” for the will of God. The idea is based on the Old Testament (from the book of Judges, if memory serves) story of Gideon and his fleece. In that story, God calls on Gideon to save the Israelites from the enemy (the Philistines, I think, but don’t quote me on that). Well, Gideon is doubtful and God offers to prove His desire for Gideon. One of God’s “proofs” involves a fleece that Gideon put outdoors overnight. This happens twice. During one time, the fleece is left bone dry while the ground is wet with dew. The other time, God causes the fleece to be wet while the ground around it is completely dry. Such a miraculous event helps to demonstrate God’s power and will for Gideon. Gideon then agrees.

The idea of modern day fleecing works the same way. A Christian decides on some sign that will demonstrate that a given choice is God’s will. This concept is actually demonstrated in another Peretti boo – “The Visitation” – where young Travis Jordan decides that God will show him when he is supposed to head out to join Billy Graham’s ministry by making it so that a banjo head he ordered arrives at the music store. In that story, Peretti demonstrates one of the great problems in fleecing; that is, the “sign event” is often something that is bound to happen anyway. So there’s no real proof that the event is just happenstance or a legitimate sign from God. And I know other writers and theologians who have given much deeper explanations on the problem with fleecing.

But it seems to me that Edith Duster’s comment is as much a sign of fleecing as any test involving a banjo head. It seems to me that it’s still a matter of relying on a matter of circumstance or circumstances – that may well occur on their own without God’s miraculous intervention – to determine whether one is following God’s will. It just strikes me as a shortcut to honest introspection and seeking the Will of God.

Now, I readily admit that part of my opinion on this is almost certainly influenced by my non-Christian views. In fact, I’d say it’s further influence by the fact that I’m a witch. After all, it seems to me that relying on circumstance to divine anything – be it the Will of God or some impersonal force such as Fate – flies in the face of underlying philosophy of my beliefs as a maker of magic. That’s why I have an equal problem with Neo-Wiccans who attribute their circumstances to fate and karma and then choose to passively live whatever life the world deems willing to give them. But it seems to me that the idea that something as fickle and highly susceptible to just about every influence as circumstance should be chosen as a litmus test for anything should bother anyone who remotely believes in free will and personal responsibility.

(Of course, the irony among some Christians is that many who will tell you that they must be in the Will of God because of all the good they're doing will then turn around in times of trouble and tell you that their tribulations are signs that they're in the Will of God because it's obviously Satan trying to keep them down. But that's probably a whole different entry.)

Today was a pretty good day. I didn't get a lot of work done, but I did enough to keep myself from getting overwhelmed with guilt. Primarily, I rewrote all of my PCI-X code for the new processor. That was quite an adventure, as I had to handle three different PCI-X cores on the same processor. I hope that all works when I get a chance to finally test it. Of course, that won't be until the middle of next month, by the look of it.

I spent more of they day putzing around online. Particularly, I spent a good deal of time getting highly annoyed at the one topic on one of the religious forums I visit. Someone started a thread called "Ask a Pagan," for people to ask all kinds of questions about Paganism. Unfortunately, while a few people have asked some interesting and probing questions, most have taken the opportunity to ask pointed questions to prove why Paganism is "wrong."

That just annoys me. Why is it that some people have to be such jerks? Why is it that any opportunity to learn about another religion has to be used as a way to "trap" that religion in some way to disprove it? Why can't more people be like Stace, who sincerely asks questions to better understand others and their viewpoints? But I guess that takes maturity. And my experience, maturity is something that's severely lacking in our society today. Instead, everything has to be turned into a penis-measuring contest of one sort or another.

Of course, I have to admit that I found a lot of the Pagans' answers trite, boring, and annoying, too. For starters, they let themselves get dragged into the whole "how can all paths be valid" argument, though "abyss that pretends to be an argument" might be more accurate. Truthfully, I'm not sure I care for the whole "all paths are valid" model anyway. I think there has to be a decent middle ground between saying "I have a monopoly on truth" and sayng "well, everything anyone wants to believe is true." Of course, this gets into bigger questions as to what constitutes "valid" and whatnot. And while I could probably go on a lengthy ramble abou that, I'm not sure I care to at this time. Let me just say that I think it's time to say, "Truth is a very complex thing and I think that people can have equally accurate and yet distinct perceptions of truth, but it is not my concern to determine or comment on the 'validity' of any particular claims of truth." But that probably only makes sense to me, and that's subject to change.

For the first time ever, I watched the show "Thirty Days" tonight. My friend Beth told me about it, and I wanted to check it out. I particularly wanted to watch tonight's episode, as it was about a young (mid-twenties) conservative Christian from Detroit who went to live with a gay roommate in the middle of San Francisco's Castro District for thirty days. I was pleasantly surprised by the show, and I wanted to take a few moments to review and critique it.

To be honest, when I originally heard about the details, I wasn't entirely thrilled. I took issue with sending the guy to San Francisco. San Francisco is the "gay mecca" of the United States, and as such, I don't feel it's a very accurate representation of the lives of most gay people. Those of us wholive outside of San Francisco (and possibly NYC) tend to live more isolated lives and have to deal more directly with straight people much more often. As such, I wasn't sure that sending someone to San Francisco was the best way to give them a clear view of what it's like to live life as a gay man.

Having watched the show, I have to admit that I find it necessary to reevaluate my opinion. An essential byproduct of sending Ryan to live in the Castro District was that it caused Ryan to be the one who was isolated. He was a straight, conservative Christian surrounded by a bunch of gay guys. If Ryan really thinks about that experience (and I get the impression he did and will), it probably gave him a much more clear idea of what many of us experience every day than we realize. This understanding would come to him by being in an analogous situation himself.

He got a first taste of this kind of experience his first night in town. Ed, Ryan's thirty-something roommate for the month, took him to dinner with eleven other gay guys. Having watched the footage, I have to admit that I hope the dinner conversation was highly edited. Every conversation focused on homosexuality and issues relating to it. And in a number of instances, the twelve gay guys put Ryan a bit on the defensive. (I have to admit that Ryan handled himself relatively well under the circumstances, too.) At one point, one of the gay guys even asked Ryan about how many times he's had people on the street throw beer cans at him. Ryan said never, and the person who asked the question indicated that it had happened to him more than once.

While there, Ryan also attended MCC services on at least two Sundays and had a number of meeting with the minister. To be honest, I was somewhat disappointed with this part of the program. If what I saw was an accurate representation of the MCC, I don't think I'd be impressed at all. They aired brief segments from two of the services that Ryan attended, and both services went on about homosexuality. If this is a regular practice at every church service, I would have a serious problem with that, as there should be more to religion and spirituality than just sexuality. (And this is coming from someone who serves a goddess who values sexuality extremely highly!) Similarly, Ryan's meetings with the minister appeared to focus entirely on the topic of homosexuality, and there was a lot of head-butting there. It just seemed to me that there should have been an equal amount of searching for common ground as there was in arguing over this one topic. (Though I do give them credit for apparently keeping it more or less civil.)

They took Ryan to a gay bar. Let me just say "Wow!" Ryan did not find that the greatest of experiences, and I can't say as I completely blame him. There were a large number of barely dressed men (some looked to me as if they were running around in only briefs), and it definitely had the "meat market atmosphere" -- even moreso than the two clubs I have been to. One of the patrons picked a (verbal) fight with Ryan, which I felt was rather stupid. Though on the flip side, having had conservative people pick similar kinds of fights with me, I do have to admit that I felt it wasn't an entirely bad thing for Ryan to have to experience.

After that, Ed felt that Ryan was getting too frustrated and upset. So Ed took Ryan to join a gay softball team. I found it interesting that the team actually played in a league where all the other teams were (mostly?) straight. It was nice to see that the team wasn't totally isolationist in nature, and played teams that were not all-gay.

During his time playing softball, Ryan got to spend time with his team's coach, Charles. Ryan gained a lot of respect for Charles, realizing that he broke all of the gay stereotypes. And later, Ryan got to hear Charles's coming out story. Charles was one of those (hopefully) rare people who actually got thrown out of his house by his parents (he was 12 at the time) when he came out. Charles also indicated that at the time, he was highly religious and "went to bed every night, praying to wake up and be 'normal' the next morning." Ryan was very silent about this, and I think this story really confronted some of his own preconceived notions.

Ryan did make a few enemies at the local "gay chapter" of the VFW. Being a Reservice, Ryan has strong opinions on gays in the military. This did not go over well with the veterans he was speaking with. Both sides got quite upset. However, it did lead to an interesting discussion with Ed later that same day. When he got back to the apartment, Ryan and Ed talked about it. Ryan asked Ed to try to understand why a bunch of straight soldiers might have a problem with having a gay guy in the barracks. (Personally, I think straight guys have a problem with it because they're afraid gay guys will treat them as poorly as they themselves treat women, but that's besides the point.) Ed then turned around and asked Ryan about a hypothetical question. He asked Ryan to suppose that things went really bad in teh Middle East and that the United States found themselves at war with the whole region. This would probably mean that they'd have to reinstate the draft. So Ed asked Ryan to suppose that he (Ed) was drafted and ended up in Ryan's unit to serve during war. He asked Ryan whether he'd rather put up with Ed as a gay man serving with him or possibly not having enough manpower beside him to keep him and the rest of his unit safe.

Ryan actually admitted that he had to contradict himself. He admitted that having gotten to know Ed as a person over the past several days, he'd have no problem serving with him specifically. In fact, Ryan admitted that he felt that Ed had a lot to offer the military. As such, Ryan found himself having to reevaluate his blanket statement about gays in the military, and I respect him for having the integrity to admit that.

Ed also took Ryan to meet his family, which was an eye opening experience. While there, all of the men (Ryan, Ed, Ed's father, and Ed's brother) shot firearms. In a brief interview afterwards, Ryan admitted that it gave him a chance to see Ed as not just a gay guy but a brother, a son, and an uncle. And he was amazed at how his family treated him.

Ryan also attended a PFLAG meeting, where he got to talk to a father whose daughter came out to him her sophomore year in college. He got to listen to this father talk about his fears and worries, and his desire to see his daughter treated with the same respect and dignity a her two straight brothers. Ryan said this also touched his heart.

There was a lot more that happened, but I'm not going to go into everything. These are the experiences that really struck me, and I wanted to share them, as well as my brief thoughts in them. In closing, I'd like to talk about the brief segment in the show where Ryan eventually went home. He spent his first night home showing photos to his family and talking about his experiences. They only showed about thirty seconds to a minute of the discussion, but it was amazing to watch. His family asked all kinds of questions, and it seemed to me that Ryan was a bit troubled and shocked by the questions. Ryan himself admitted that when he got home and talked with his family that night, he really saw how much he had grown. He saw his own earlier attitudes and how much he had bought into the stereotypes reflected in his family now. He said that realizing how much he had bought into the stereotypes was the most powerful result of the experience. He found himself having to reevaluate his opinions.

I get the impression that his religious beliefs about homosexuality didn't change as a result. To be honest, that's okay (well, sorta). It would be unreasonable to expect such a change to happen just because of a thirty day experience. However, I did feel that he came away with a rather different perspective and that he did find his preconceived notions challenged in many ways. And I think that he should be commended to being open to that.

Doing random searches for blogs, I ran across another blogger's diatribe about Halloween. Now, I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of Halloween myself. (Indeed, I'm quite happy that I observe Samhain based on an astrological calendar, as it places my ritual observances as a separate event from Halloween altogether.) Unlike the author of that blog post, though, I do tend to see Halloween (except for the prankish part) as mostly "harmless fun."

But what really caught my attention was this bloggers argument against it. It seemed that the crux of his argument is that it "desensitizes" people to the "traditional symbols of evil" -- such as the devil. The continuing thought from that point is that this desensitization will allow "moral relativity" to reign supreme because those moral systems of the faiths that provided these symbols will be devalued at the same time.

I see a number of problems with this viewpoint. The basic underlying problem is that it underscores the fact that these "traditional faiths" (namely certain sects of Christianity, because no other faith seems to see the Devil in quite that same light) are relying too heavily on these "symbols of evil" to begin with. Personally, I think that it's time that these faiths quit hanging quite so tightly onto this idea of "the Devil" as the source of evil. After all, the Bible does not start with the downfall of Lucifer, but with the sin of Adam and Eve. And it continues from there with many more stories describing the evils of countless human beings. While I admit that it's been years since I've done any serious Biblical research, it seems to me that when you look at the countless evils carried out by humans in its pages, you begin to notice that the antics of Satan and his minions seem to be little more than subtext.

Indeed, it seems that religious groups that focus on these "external symbols of evil" such as devils have lost the very essence and point of their religious texts. The evil isn't (just) "out there" with "devils" and other such creatures. There's real evil lurking in the hearts of men and women everywhere. Perhaps if we took that reality a bit more seriously, how people view and treat those "traditional symbols of evil" wouldn't be as essential.

I was just reading one of the liberal Christian blogs I like to keep up with, and discovered his recent entry about his son's confirmation in the Lutheran church. First of all, I'd encourage everyone to check out his son's "personal profession of faith" which he wrote. Personally, even though I don't necessarily share his views, I thought it was an excellent attempt by the young man to grapple with his own faith and what it means to him. I think that more young people should be encouraged to do this.

The (rightfully) proud father prefaces this by pointing out that this practice of encouraging confirmands to write their personal statements of faith as a part of the confirmation process is a relatively new one. He compares this practice to "back in the day" when he himself was confirmed, in which the confirmation process involved memorizing a number of various pieces of information (such as the Apostles' Creed and the ten commandments) and then being quizzed on it. He briefly mentions the anxiety he and his peers felt during this process and confesses that he wasn't sure how it really demonstrateded they were "ready to assume the rights and responsibilities of adulthood in the church's eyes."

I'm inclined to agree with the blogger's point of view on that one. The confirmation process that his son recently went through strikes me as much more reasonable, not to mention valuable. This is based on my own firm belief that one's faith must be more than mere rote memorization of certain creeds, laws, and other doctrinal points and "bits of information" deemed "worthy." As I mentioned in my commemnt to the blogger, it seems to me that faith essentially requires the understanding and wisdom to apply all of that knowledge, lest said knowledge remain little more than "useless trivia" tucked away in some recess of the memory.

Towards the end of my time in church and involvement with my church's Sunday School program, I became more aware of this problem. Too often, our program would rely on rote memorization without actually teaching the kids much about what it means to live out one's faith. (Oh sure, we went over the ten commandments and told everyone that they shouldn't lie, cheat, steal, or the other assorted sins young children are most likely to be presented with, but a faithful life needs to be more than these things.) We filled those kids with our "head knowledge" and gave them little else. So it's nice to see that at least some churches are coming around and trying to correct that error.

Now if only today's pagans and witches would also catch wind of that idea. After all, we still too often rely on "head knowledge." What's the first thing we tell everyone who says they're interested in Paganism/Wicca/witchcraft? "Read, read, and read." We encourage them to fill their heads with information (and let's not forget that 99% of the information they'll probably find is bad.) But we don't talk about the practical, "living the faith" kinds of things.

So "newbies" become "collectors of things." They collect the various snippets of lore and poetry that have made it into the public domain (both legitimately and illegitimately), the lists of "healing crystals and their uses," the lists of "elemental correspondenses," the lists of "gods and their functions," and all kinds of other things.

But where's the serious contemplation of what it means to honor the old gods? Where is the deep searching of what it means to live "in tune with nature"? (Actually, I think "living in tune with nature" isn't as big a part of Paganism as some would suggest, but if people are going to bandy about that phrase, I think it a good idea to start talking about how to practically go about accomplishing it.) Where is the deep discussion of how the Wheel of the Year affects us on a deep, personal level?

Maybe like the Christian blogger I mentioned, these are things that will only be sorted when my own children start down the Pagan paths. Maybe it'll be longer than that. But I hope that we start thinking about these things now, so that this essential shift in focus happens some time.

I've run across several rposts of an AP article about a court ruling to allow students attending a "school for witches" in the Netherlands to write off the cost of tuition for tax purposes. Having seen it, I thought it would be a good idea for me to post my own thoughts.

First of all, I expect there to be a huge fuss over this. As the article indicates, there's already those who are of the opinion that this is little more than a government "endorsing witchcraft." And I suspect we will be hearing more of the same as the news gets out. (I can just hear the howls of outraged 700 Club fans now.) Of course, I find myself wondering why no one complains about the number of "church owned projects" that are being "endorsed" by the government due to the fact that the church can extend their tax exempt status to those projects. (Even my evangelical and rather conservative father is becoming disgusted with how American churches are -- in his opinion, at least -- abusing their tax exempt status by the things they claim as "church owned.") In my mind, all of this outrage underscores the deep-seated belief that Christians have the right to decide what constitutes a "religion" deserving of Constitutionally protected status.

Now, having said that, I have to admit that I have my own concerns about this decision. For example, according to the article, the court ruling indicated that scholing costs can be declared if said schooling increases their likelihood of employment and personal income. I find myself wondering how attending a school for witches reasonably does either. Unless the Netherlands actually allows for professional witches to hire out their services -- and for all I know, they do -- I don't see how this improves their employability. I've never seen a job opportunity where my circle casting or chanting skills have been all that relevant, let alone something that would give me a "leg up" on my competitors for the position. I might be able to argue that there are subtle life skills I have learned as I've practiced my Craft that have contributed to my effectiveness as an employee. However, that would be tough to argue. And it would be nearly impossible to argue that I'd specifically learned those skills thanks to a school in witchcraft. I'm just not sure how someone can reasonably demonstrate that an "education in witchcraft" has improved their employability except in very rare cases. (The other possibility that comes to mind is that one could become a professional tarot reader. But again, I can think of alternative -- and cheaper -- routes to get set up in that line of business.)

Of course, given where my interest lie, the idea of a "school" where you "learn witchcraft" -- and pay for it, no less -- just makes me bristle. The taking of money implies that anyone who can pay the almost $3000 and attend all the courses will become a witch. As I understand witchcraft, that's not how things work. Being a witch is learning more than the "right stuff." It's as much about attitude and the ability to see things in a certain way as it is about knowing the right things -- or even knowing how to do the right things. And these are things that one cannot guarantee a student will learn.

Now having said that, I'm sure that the people going to this school all learn something. And whatever they may be learning might be valuable. I'm just not sure it'll always be "witchcraft" that they've learned. And I certainly don't think it guarantees that every student who completes the course of study will attain "witchhood."

Sometime last week, I ran across this entry by a young Christian blogger. I decided to leave him a comment, though I get the impression he completely missed my point. I left him a second comment, hoping that maybe it'll clarify what I'm getting at.

Now, I'm going to set aside my personal feelings about his theology for the moment. I'm going to set aside the natural defensiveness some part of me feels over his comments about my religious practices. After all, at least on an "intellectual level," I can respect his right to hold his opinions on these things. I can even respect his right to express those opinions.

But at the same time, I can only feel that this is a young man without any practical direction, and that spells disaster in my mind. In all of his statements, I don't see even the slightest hint of a sense of how he's going to go about living a more "visible" relationship for God. Well, at least not beyond spouting off catchphrases and buzzwords like a motivational speaker.

Of course, part of me wonders if that's not part of the problem. I find myself wondering if he's been to one too many "revival meetings" of a certain sort. You know, those meetings where someone stands in front of a crowd, gives a number of compelling speeches designed specifically to stir everyone's emotions and get them "worked up for Jesus," but then leave their "revived" people to wonder what happened once the emotional high is over and real life set in. All because while said speaker(s) got them all worked up, they didn't do a very good job of keeping things going. (And let's face it, there's only so long you can keep an emotional high going. It's one reason churches don't have "revival meetings" every Sunday.)

What really worries me -- and what should worry all Christians out there -- is what kind of bridges this young man might burn in his current state. He's so hyped up that he almost seems to be looking for a "glorious confrontation." (Read his other two entries and you'll see more of what I'm talking about.) And while that sounds great in theory, it's a pretty good way of making some enemies. And you know, it's rather difficult to share any message, let alone the gospel message, with an enemy.

And as much as it bugs me, I have to admit that we witches and Pagans tend to be grudge-holders. We tend to look at someone like this young man who, in his sincere exuberance, tends to put a chasm between himself and those he wants to "save" by his poorly chosen words and deeds, and we tend to see all well-meaning Christians through the filter of our experiences with him. So we quit listening to all of them. The rude, the well-meaning but ill-prepared, the sincere and wise, they're all seen through the lense of past experience. And when that lense has the most confrontational of the lot embedded in it, it can create quite a distortion. (Natureally, those of us who have gained wisdom try to overcome this "filtering process," but even we can have our difficulties from time to time.

Hopefully, someone will take this young man aside and teach him some wisdom and compassion to go along with his enthusiasm and conviction. Otherwise, I suspect this will end badly. For everyone involved.

During this past Halloween season, I ran across an article by a woman named Catherine Edwards Sanders. In this article, she wrote a few comments on the growing interest in "Wicca" (she uses the term in a broader context than I do) and Paganism, as well as explaining how this growing interest represents a failure on the part of "the Church" as a whole. As part of her by-line on the article, she mentions that she also wrote a book on the same subject, whose title is Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality. Being the curious sort, I decided to order a copy. It came today, and so far I have torn through the preface and first chapter.

So far, I think the book deserves a fair amount of praise. This is not to say that I agree with everything the author says, mind you. Indeed, I think there are some points that need to be criticized. But so far, I think that the woman deserves a great deal of credit for setting her personal and religious views aside as much as possible and trying to understand the practices of those she observed and interviewed. As such, I feel it only appropriate to take a close look at her book and investigate both those areas where she made some excellent observations and those areas where her information, presentation of that information, or both are weak or faulty. It is my intention to do this in this blog -- both this entry an future ones -- as I read through the book.

The first thing I notice in chapter one is that it seems to me that the majority of her "sources" are from the "eclectic Wiccan" camp. (Even the one interviewee in this chapter that identifies as having become a Gardnerian says some thign I'd consider uncharcteristic of most Garderians, and I've met more than a few) I'm not sure if this is just the nature of this chapter -- after all, it focuses mostly on her encounter with and investigation of the "Pagan" side of Salem around Halloween -- or will continue through the book, but it does raise a bit of concern to me. After all, it raises a strong risk of painting all Pagans with the same broad brush. And even among the "Wiccans," the image she's portraying will not remain accurate for long.

Sanders actually opens chapter one by describing a "spell performed for spectators" that she witnessed. I must say that I admire Sanders for her even tone in the description of this rite. She neither tries to make it sound more sensationalistic than it is nor tries to deride it as a bunch of "nonsense." Instead, she gives a matter-of-fact, clearly descriptive account. This account immediately demonstrates her sincerity in wanting to represent the subject of her books fairly and kindly. Truth be told, I felt she gave a much kinder description of the rite than i would have been inclined to offer, myself. After all, I'm inclined to call into question the very idea of doing a spell "so that spectators can watch" (and charging them for the privelege, no less!), whereas Sanders is willing to let such a dubious activity pass without challenge.

She then gives a brief "history" of Wicca, repeating the commonly held -- if not entirely accurate in my opinion -- view that Gardner and his colleagues cobbled the religion out of a number of sources. While she doesn't come right out and say that she disbelieves the stories of Gardner's involvement with New Forest Coven (or NFC's very existence), she does seem to hint that she's of that mindset. Of course, given her sources, that's mostly understandable.

Sanders then offers four basic points that she considers to be common threads in the various practices of "Wicca." I think that these four points deserve special consideration and examination, as they again demonstrate the kinds of "Wiccans" she was observing and interviewing. As such I shall take each point as she writes them. The first point, she summarizes as follows:

All is one -- Wiccans hold the monistic and pantheistic beliefs that all living things are of equal value. Humans have no special place, nor are they made in God's image. They have, for example, the same value as flowers, trees, or grass. The cosmos is undifferentiated universal engergy, and everything is one vast, interconnected process.

Based on the Wicca I know, I find it difficult to comment on how accurately it reflects their practice. It is neither entirely accurate, nor entirely inaccurate. Furthermore, it is rather difficult to point out to specific points within this statement and say "this is true, but that isn't." While it is true that the Wicca tend to believe that many people in our society tend to over-emphasize the value of human beings in comparison to the value of non-human life (or even those things that we don't generally view as alive), I would not say go so far as to say that they see everything as being "the same" or "undifferentiated." In fact, I'd argue that it's quite the opposite. They see the individual and unique beauty of both humans and all other parts of the world around us, and they appreciate each one for its own greatness. In this sense, there is this idea of thigns being "valued differently," which must be honored in it's own right. Contrast this with the idea of being "less valued" or "more valued," and you get a more clear idea.

Point two reads as follows:

You are divine -- Wiccans believe they possess divine power within themselves and that they are gods or goddesses.

To be honest, I wonder how much of this point comes from Sanders' communications with "public witches" like Laurie Cabot and those who follow them. Most of the Wicca I know -- as well as most other witches and Pagans -- hold no such belief. While it is true that the Wicca believe that each individual is a reflection and representative of the gods and that the gods can be seen within each individual, this is a far cry from actually believing one is a fully fledged god. It seems to me that Sanders has either met some rather unusual witches in her studies or she is misunderstanding what is actually believed by most.

The third point is as follows:

Personal power is unlimited -- Wiccans believe that their power is not limited by a deity, as in Christianity.

This is the first point I think the Wicca I know might actually agree with her on. But to be honest, I'm surprised most of the "Wiccans" she spoke with also believe this. In my experience many people still have this idea that magic is still "asking" or "getting" the gods to do something for them, much as Christians see prayers of petition.

The fourth and final point reads as follows:

Consciousness can and should be altered through the pracice of rite and ritual -- Wiccans believe in the supernatural realm and the practice of altered consciousness through rite, ritual, and spell-casting in which they tap into the power and energy of the unseens spirit world.

This is fairly accurate, though I might personally eschew the use of the word "supernatural." Personally, I'm inclined to view the "spirit world" as natural as the "physical world," just of a nature we can't quite understand in the same way at this time. Indeed, I think that this constant tendency to separate the "physical" and "spiritual" or "supernatural" into two neat packages that have nothing to do with one another to be an area of concern. And unfortunately, it's a tendency found in various forms of both Christianity and Paganism.

I think that Sanders next hits upon a goldmine, but then glosses over it too quickly. She mentions that "Wicca" seems to delight in having no orthodoxy (quoting what is probably one of the few actually useful things Aidan Kelly has ever said on the topic of Wicca in his entire life). She points out that rather than focusing on doctrine, direct experience seems to be important. This is something I personally do not believe that can be emphasized enough, as the proper performance of certain rites and the internalization of the resulting experiences is the heart and soul of Wicca. Unfortunately, this heart and soul is too often lacking in eclectic circles. In her own way, Sanders points this out as she goes on to say that "Wicca" is instead defined "in opposition to issues such as environmental degradation, the perceived patriarchy within Christianity, or monotheism in general." If this is truly how the "Wiccans" Sanders interviewed see Wicca, then I am inclined to suggest that they "missed the boat" in that regards. Unfortunately, Sanders seems to be equally unaware of that state of affairs.

Sanders next tackles the question of Satan. In this area, Sanders deserves more praise. She again states clearly and almost emphatically that "Wiccans" do not believe they worship Satan. Moreover, she presses the issue by stating that she considers it inappropriate for Christians to accuse them of being Satan worshippers. In this, she does draw the fine line that there is a difference between believing that Pagans are "unwittingly" worshipping Satan in disguise (a position she implies that she holds herself) and believing they knowingly and explicitly worship him. It is the latter she is decrying in this part, and she makes a strong case for her views.

One thing that I do note about this part of her discussion is that she brings up that "Wiccans" don't believe in Satan and the fact that they don't believe in "absolute evil" in the same paragraph, suggesting the two are somehow linked. I find this curious, as it again suggests a belief on her part that Satan is the absolute source of evil (for more thoughts on this topic, I refer the curious reader back to an earlier entry I posted that touched on that line of thinking.

This chapter review has grown long. I think I will leave my remaining thoughts for another entry on another day. In the meantime, I hope my readers will find this review informative.

Yesterday, I drove to London Ontario to attend the Saturday sessions of the Gathering Mists Pagan Conference. As this was the first year that this conference has ever been held, it had a relatively small turnout. However, as we know, quantity isn't generally a desirable alternative to quality. And when it comes to quality, I am of the opinion that yesterday's activities were the cream of the crop. The guest speakers were personable, clearly knowledgeable about the topics they discussed, and communicated that knowledge concisely to those of us not quite so "in the know." The topics chosen for each workshop were also interesting and engaging.

The first workshop that I attended in the morning was "Bardic Tradition in Ritual," presented by Greg Currie, aka "Frosty the Pagan." Frosty discussed the various modes of musical expression from simple rhythm to complex productions where music is combined with various other ritual forms of expression. He also described the various ways in which these forms of musical expression can be used effectively in ritual, from being a "background activity" to being an integral part of the primary activity. Making use of his drum and guitar, he was able to give live demonstrations of some of the concepts he was discussing. The workshop eventually ended with full group participation in singing some chants -- including one chant in which two groups sang completely different parts simultneously. As an aside, a fascinating discusison cropped up during this work shop in which everybody discussed the relationship between music and dance, especially the symbiotic relationships that tend to form between dancers and drummers during a good drumming circle.

The next workshop that I attended was "Building Respectful Relationships," presented by Jennifer Drummond. This workshop primarily focused on becoming aware of how one's past experiences, culture, family life, and other factors affect the way that you communicate ideas as well as being aware that similar "filters" affect how the perso you are talking to interprets what you say. Jennifer spent some time discussing tools to help with building this awareness and learning to work through the resulting communication problems. She also discussed such topics as setting boundaries and dealing with "triggers" effectively. Because of the size of the group (this is one of those cases where I felt the lower turnout actually worked to the workshop's advantage), Jennifer was able to learn about attendees' personal communication experiences and offer specific insights.

The third workshop I attended was "The Implications of Korean Shamanism," presented by Castalia. In this workshop, Castalia describes the current status of the Korean mansin (pronounced "man-SHEEN"), particularly noting how they have fallen from being highly revered as political advisors to people very low on the socio-economic ladder and Korea's "dirty lttle secret." Castalia made a strong case in suggesting that this transition is analogous to what would have happened to European Paganism if Christians in political power had waged a war of attrition against them rather than one of persecution and violence. She also noted a number of similarities in practice and belief between these Korean shamans and the witches of Europe. To do this, she summarized various anthropoligists' descriptions of the Kut (long U sound), a shamanic rite for exorcising the poisonous spirits from a home and blessing it. Her information was fascinating on many levels, both to see what a vibrant tradition still thrives in Korea (despite being frowned upon and attempts to keep it secret) and to see some of the parallels to modern European revivals and reconstructions.

I would also like to take a moment to mention the main ritual that was held yesterday at the conference, led by Richard and Tamara James, founders of the Wiccan Church of Canada. It was a simple, yet beautiful and touching rite. The phrasing chosen for each part in the rite was filled with skillful beauty that was only matched by the deep love an respect of those who participated. I have participated in a small number public rites, but I'd be hard pressed to think of one that I found as personally touching.

My trip also gave me an excellent chance to socialize, meet old friends, build on aquaintanceships, and meet some new people. I believe that each interraction yesterday enriched my life in one way or another. For that, I will always be thankful.

Overall, I found my experience at Gathering Mists to be enjoyable, engaging, and uplifting. I can only hope that this event will continue for many years. I would encourage anyone who can make it next year to do so. I doubt you will be disappointed.

In a previous post, I began reviewing chapter one of Catherine Sanders's book, Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunge Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality. In this entry, I hope to complete this review.

After discussing "Wiccans'" disbelief in Satan and the fact that they are not horrible devil worshippers, Sanders turns her attention to trying to explain the belief in magic and spellwork. This is no easy task for most Pagans and witches, let alone a Christian journalist, and I admire Sanders's care and effort in writing about this topic. She begins this discussion by offering Starhawk's definition of magic (personally, I prefer Crowley's definition), as well as an example Starhawk has used to clarify and further explain her definition and how magic works.

One of the things that disappoints me is that Sanders does not discuss any Pagan beliefs concerning the source or nature of that power (hopefully, she will cover it in a later chapter). I believe this to be a fairly serious oversight, as I believe that the understanding of the source of the witch's power -- that the witch generates that power with her own body -- is an essential key to grasping many profound truths within the Craft. Of course, not all Pagans and "Wiccans" agree with me on the importance of this understanding, and this may explain Sanders's ommission of that particular point.

Sanders then goes into some of the common themse that most "Wiccans" will agree on, such as the perception of the Goddess as the Mother Goddess and the God as her Horned Consort. I do get the impression that her sources all tend to believe that "all gods are one and all goddesses are one," and this shines through in her descriptions of the God and Goddess. She also mentions the eight Sabbats and thirteen esbats.

She also mentions the commonly accepted symbol of the pentagram. Unfortunately, she does propagate an incorrect belief that runs rampant in the Pagan community -- another sure sign that all of her sources come from a closely related subgroup of the greater Pagan community. This is the belief that "Wiccans" and Pagans eschew the inverted ("one point down") pentagram, indicating that it is a symbol of Satanists. While it is true that Satanists have often made use of the inverted pentagram, they do not have a monopoly on that form of the symbol. There are indeed magical and religious traditions outside of Satanism that make use of the inverted Paganism. Unfortunately, by propagating this particular falsehood, Sanders is unintentionally encouraging her Christian readers to jump to incorrect conclusions if they happen to run across a practitioner of one of those traditions who do make use of an inverted pentagram.

Sanders then goes into a discussion about the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law. This is of particular concern to me. Unfortunately, far too many people in the Pagan community think that these two items make up the sum total of Pagan ethics. This is completely untrue, as some Pagan groups don't subscribe to either the Rede or the Threefold Law. Even among those who do subscribe to them, the way they are interpreted can vary greatly and widely. And many groups have further gudelines and factors to consider in their ethics. (Personally, I've always felt that the line in the Charge of the Goddess that calls for reverence, humility, compassion, and similar values was far more helpful in making ethical decisions than either the Rede or the Law of Returns.)

As an aside, Sanders paraphrases the thoughts of a Salem witch named Marisa concerning Osama bin Laden during this discussion of ethics. I found Marisa's views on that particular topic dubious at best, and it concerns me that these views were presented as universal to all "Wiccans" -- or even Pagans in general. While I may disagree with how our government officials are currently handling the "war on terror" to some degree, I do not endorse a course of action of "sending the terrorist positive energy and letting them be eventually punished by the Threefold Law." I find such a suggestion downright preposterous, and I doubt I'm the only witch who does!

Sanders then describes some time she spent observing and talking with Laurie Cabot. I will not spend any time coveing that, but will merely point out that I'm not sure what Ms. Cabot practices, but it seems to bear little resemblance to the forms of witchcraft I or those I have come to know and personally respect happen to practice. And while I respect Ms. Cabot's right to practice as she wishes, I wish she didn't make such an effort in presuming to "represent" all of us.

Sanders closes the chapter with a brief description of a Samhain ritual on she observed on "Gallows Hill." This ritual seems like the standard "open rite" performed for a general public: A bit showy, but very little depth. However, it's vibrant colors and themes does provide a pleasant closing to Sanders's first chapter.

One thing I will note on this chapter is that Sanders refers to "Gallows Hill" as the place where the witches of the Salem witch trials were hanged. I realize that she is merely repeating what tourists are told every year. However, I do find the fact that she didn't look into the truth of this matter as a journalist a bit disappointing. Truth be told, there are no records that indicate where the historical Gallows Hill was. Danvers's (formerly known as Salem Village -- where the trials actually took place) best efforts to uncover this information has still born no fruit.

It's been a while since I started my book book review of Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality by Catherine Edwards Sanders. As such, I decided to take the time to read through and review chapter two of the book, which the author gave the title, "Tired of Sitting in Pews." In this chapter, Sanders attempts to look at the reasons that so many people are looking to find spirituality in Paganism rather than seeking it through Christianity. The four reasons that she compiles are as follows:

1. Concern for the earth
2. Empowerment for women
3. Frustration with consumer culture
4. The draw of the supernatural

What interests me here is that Sanders does not try to dismiss these reasons. In fact, she shows a certain amount of sensitivity towards these sentiments. She even goes so far as to admit that many Christians and churches do seem to ignore these matters, and can even be antagonistic towards them.

Once acknowledging these differences, she speaks of the complaint of hypocricy within "the Church" that many Pagans complain about. Again, she does not shy away from this and does not deny that these things happen. However, she does rightfully point out that not all Christians play the part of the hypocrite. She also rightfully points out that there are some less-than-perfect people within Paganism.

As she discusses the tensions between Christians and Pagans alike, as well as the preconceived notions each side has about the other, Sanders makes what is both one of the simplest and one of the most important observations about the whole affair:

Sadly, many Christians don't take the time to get to know people like Ginny [one of the witches the author interviewed for this chapter]; instead, they judge her from afar. And, like Ginny, many Pagans judge Christians from afar. This only alienates neo-Pagans from Christians. It would be better if Christians defied the stereotypes by getting to know neo-Pagans, as the apostle Paul did.

I would add to Sanders's thoughts that it would also be helpful if more Pagans took the time to temporarily "forget" the stereotypes when meeting a Christian for the first time and got to know that individual as a real person. Until we're willing to stop filtering every experience through the stereotypes and our past experiences, no sincere attempt by Christians to get to know us better is likely to be all that successful.

One of the specific incidents that Sanders mentions where Christians have generated some "bad blood" involves an incident that happened three and a half years ago. (Incidentally, this is another area where Sanders demonstrates a need to be a bit more exacting in her research. The incident that she is describing did not occur at Midsummer, but during a ritual honoring the Spring equinox.) A small group of overly-zealous Christians attempted to interrupt a rite being performed outside a Craft store in Lancaster California and generally harassed those in attendance. This is one of those cases where Sanders certainly shows her willingness to look critically at some of the things adherents of her own faith have done.

Overall, I felt this chapter was a bit short and more than a little superficial. The author certainy did not cover the widh and breadth of reasons why people might leave Christianity, or what theological issues individual Pagans might have with Christianity. For example, she did not consider the fact that many Pagans question the need for "salvation," or the fact that many find Christianity's all too common focus on the afterlife to be rather life-negating in nature. It's not clear to me whether Sanders just picked the "top four" reasons she ran across and chose to focus on them, or whether she really believes those four reasons actually "cover all the bases."

I suppose as the month of January is almost half over, it would prudent of me to post a first blog entry for January 2006. I know it's been over a month since I posted anything, for which I apologize. December was a difficult month for me on a personal level. Part of that was due to craziness at work. Another part was due to the fact that it was my first Christmas alone after ending a long term relationship with a man I truly loved.

Another part was that my main focus in the past few entries, a series of entries reviewing Catherine Sanders' book titled Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality, has hit a bit of a roadblock. I won't get into too many details at this point, as I would rather cover them in future entries in that series (assuming I ever "pick up the trail" again). However, suffice it to say that I'm struggling with Sanders's incomplete research and tendency to focus almost entirely on the most superficial aspects of the Pagan movement. (Also, her chapter covering the "history of Wicca" is full of the same misconceptions, straw men, and other flaws as most treatments of the subject, and that's something I'm getting tired of even trying to address.) So I've decided to put that process on hold.

However, I recently obtained another book which I'd like to cover in my blog. This one is by Robin Wood, a artist that is fairly well known in the Sci-Fi communities and probably most famous in the Pagan and Occult community for her tarot deck. (It's certainly one of my favorite decks.) However, the book I've just finished reading is her less known introduction to "Wiccan" ethics, When, Why ... If. It's a relatively small book, being about 175 pages long without the appendix, glossary, and recommended reading list, so it makes a relatively quick read. Of course, you could spend a good bit of time thinking about what she has written, and Ms. Wood includes a number of "exercises" at the end of each chapter to encourage exactly that.

I will start out to say that this is by no means an exhaustive and complete discussion of ethics, Wiccan or otherwise. But then, that's not what the author set out to do. She makes it quite clear in the introduction that her intent was to write a book to start the Seeker out on thinking about what it means to live an ethical life, and I think she more or less achieves that goal. I particularly like the fact that the first topic she covers in the book is the topic of honesty. Ms. Wood posits that it's only when we learn to be honest with ourselves that we can truly begin to live ethically. If we continue to make excuses for our behavior, rationalize a poor decision, or even beat ourselves up for a poor decision rather than doing what we can to rectify things and learn from our mistakes, then we will continue to be lost.

The rest of the chapters cover such topics as love, helping others, harming others (or more accurately, avoiding harming others), sex, and the difference between wanting and willing. Each of these topics are covered quite well (though I still get the impression that like many "eclectic Wiccans," Ms. Wood falls prey to forgetting that the Wiccan Rede has six other words besides "harm none" and that those words and their arrangement bear consideration). There was very little I could disagree with.

My issue with the book falls more to the fact of what was missing. Personally, I think that any book on Wiccan ethics should include solid discussion on beauty, strength, power, compassion, honor, humility, mirth, and reverance. After all, these are the very values that the Goddess of Wicca herself calls for after telling her adherents that all acts of love and pleasure are her rituals. The author covers a good number of these virtues implicitly in her book, but it seems to me that a more explicit and substantial exploration would be in order. One can only hope that Ms. Wood or another author will consider doing so in a follow-up book.

This evening, I was catching up on reading my favorite blogs. During this process, I ran across a post by Stacey (not to be confused with The Sentinel/Stace) in which she talks about what she terms "the pastor disconnect." In it, she discusses the dismay that ministers experience when they realize how much time they spend doing administrative work for the church compared to the amount of time that they spend doing "ministry" -- all of the stuff that they anticipated when feeling "the call."

As I read Stacey's thoughts, I could't help but think how it relates to my feelings on Pagan clergy. As I've made it clear in the past, I'm not a huge fan of the concept. But as I read about "the pastor disconnect," I found a new perspective from which to dislike the whole idea. As I read Stacey describe what new ministers go through when they realize how administrative their job is and how that's not what they were expecting at all, I couldn't help but thinking of someone like my friend Jasmin (or myself) eventually having a similar experience as a Pagan minister. After all, most people I know who are interested in becoming paid Pagan clergy want to do so because they want to help others grow spiritually and otherwise. So as the infrastructure to support such an effort grows, I can see these people becoming disillusioned by the increasing amount of administrative work that they'd have to do in order to keep the infrastructure running smoothly. Just like the Christian ministers that crash and burn because of this, I can easily see this becoming a huge issue for many would-be Pagan ministers -- maybe more so, as we Pagans tend to be quite free-wheeling and often seem to dislike any structure that gets "too complicated" anyway.

I don't know. Maybe paid clergy would still work out in the Pagan community. Maybe those who felt called would somehow manage to make it through it, just like so many Christian ministers do. Personally, though, I can't help but feel there has to be a better way. I don't know what it is. (My initial reaction would be to suggest getting people who like to do administrative stuff and pay them to do only that while the "ministers" like Jasmin do the stuff they're strong at. But I know churches that in theory try to do that, too. And it just doesn't work out.) Hopefully someone will figure it out.

Personally, though, if I ever decide to start doing any sort of "ministering," I still think I'd rather do it as some sort of professional counselor rather than as a paid head of a Pagan church. In the end, I just think it'd be a more workable solution for me.

This weekend, I ran to Blockbuster and rented a copy of "The Visitation," a movie that is "loosely based" on the novel by the same title, written by Frank Peretti.; I originally started reading Peretti's novels when I was in high school. A good adult friend from my little hometown church recommended them to me, and I was hooked. Even now that I don't agree with the author's theology, I can still enjoy many of his works.

Unfortunately, I was dismayed by the changes made when transforming this book into a movie. This was particularly dismaying as Peretti was listed as one of the producers, suggesting that he had (though limited I'm sure) some say in these changes. Primarily, a number of characters were changed, merged, or just plain deleted. A prime example of this was the circumstances surrounding the death Travis Jordan's wife. This had the effect of transforming Jordan from a man mourning the loss caused by a disease he and his church couldn't "pray away" into a man who was bitter do to an unsolved murder.

Normally, I can be fairly understanding when things are changed in order to make a book-based movie "work." Books and movies are completely different media, and what works in one doesn't always work in the other. But the changes to the characters and plot-lines in this case represent a change to the entire theme of the original book.

"The Visitation" was a rather unique book amongst Peretti's writing experiences. It was different in that it was about something Peretti doesn't often write about. Unlike books where he's focused on the spiritual or supernatural -- like "This Present Darkness" -- or some particular issue of religio-political significance -- like "Prophet" -- this book focuses on people, as well as people's experiences with "church stuff." The supernatural "miracles" of the man who would be the new Jesus take a secondary role to the people who are reacting to him, or to Travis's painful memories of his memories -- both pleasant and unpleasant -- of life in the church. It is these things that made me appreciate this book most out of all of his other novels. And I was saddened to see all of this missing from the movie.

The movie itself was pretty good for a movie. But I think that everyone did both the movie and an excellent novel a great disservice by associating it -- even "loosely" -- with Peretti's awesome book. And I'm disappointed that Peretti would not only allow it to happen, but appears to have been at least partly involved in such a travesty.

Imagine being a young boy, sitting with your fellow Boy Scouts at Scout camp, listening to one of your leaders talk about how diverse your troop has become in terms of religious background. He's praising this religious diversity as a good thing. So when asked, you reveal your own religious background, only to be told two days later that you're "too different" and the leadership would like you to leave the troop. How long do you suppose it'll be before you ever trust an adult that tells you they value "diversity" again?

Sadly, this scenarios actually happened to young Cody and Justin Buchheim in Anacoco. While most of the boys were showing their "diversity" by the fact that they attended a Baptist church, a Methodist church, or a Catholic church, Cody spoke up and indicated that he and his brother did not attend a Christian church at all, but were Wiccan. Unfortunately, the sponsors of their troop felt that being Wiccan was "too far outside the box" to make good Boy Scout material.

Now, I first have to wonder, if "diversity" means "everyone just goes to a different church, but are still essentially Christian," can it really be called diversity? Truth be told, the actual doctrinal differences between many Christian denominations are so subtle and complex, that many of the members of those denominations would have trouble clearly explaining those differences.

So when two boys hear these proclamations of diversity being good without being able to realize just how superficial this "diversity" being praised really is, they find themselves in a trap. A trap that they were practically pulled into. After all, Cody only volunteered information about his religious background when the Scout leader explicitly asked him what church he attended. It seems to me that Scout leaders need to be more prepared for the answers they get when asking a question. They also need to be prepared not to punish boys for the answers they give.

Then you have the leader who told the boys' father that the boys would not have been asked to leave if Cody had just lied when answering the question. Now, bear in mind that the first word in the Boy Scout Law (the bit about doing one's duty to one's country and God is actually part of the Boy Scout Oath, not the Law) after "A scout is..." happens to be "trustworthy." Furthermore the first statement on the BSA website when explaining what it means to be trustworthy reads, "a Scout tells the truth." So you have a Scout leader who basically says that the boys should have avoided getting kicked out by breaking the law they promised to obey when they took the Scout Oath (second line of the oath). What exactly is the BSA teaching their boys these days, anyway?

I think what I found really telling was the region's executive regional director's comments on the situation. He laid it all at the feet of the local troop and their sponsor, claiming that it's the local troop's sponsor's call on who they accept as members. Does that mean that I can sponsor a Boy Scout troop (oh wait, that whole homosexuality thing would get in the way) and exclude all Christian boys from the troop? I'm willing to bet good money that the regional and national directors would be real quick to step in.

Fortunately, the sponsor's own district church committe -- within the United Methodist Church -- took the bull by the horns, and told the local church/sponsor "you can't do that."

In the end, the boys were invited to come back, only to leave the troop of their own volition (and I can't say as I blame them). Their mother is currently filing to start a local chapter of Spiral Scouts.

The BSA needs to take notice. This constant practice of narrowly defining what kind of boy makes a "proper Scout" is only hurting them. They lost support over the homosexuality debacle, and they'll most likely continue to lose support as they allow "local sponsors" to define what religious practices are acceptable for Scouts. And it's making more people turn to other options, like the Spiral Scouts.

I posted this over at Writers on the Loose. I decided to cross-post it here to see what some of my friends think about my theories.

On a previous column, Zjabs left me the following comment:

Ingvi- Quite often you and I are on the same side of the issue. I find nothing in your column to disagree with. What I do find interesting is that your belief in the "wrong" thing (in the eyes of the Christians) is okay. No one has tried to convert you or tried to open your eyes to Christ, etc. But when I post a column about my lack of belief, I've been given the third degree. Which begs the question- have the people on this site mellowed, or is it more understandable to have one believe in something, even if it doesn't match our own beliefs, then to have someone proclaim they don't believe at all? Now there's a column idea for you!

I thought it would be appropriate to take a moment to respond to his question. However, before I can do that, I think it important to examine the full context of the situations he's referring to.

I think that first, it's important to keep in mind that Zjab's column about his lack of belief was in response to another column by Jen. In Jen's column, she specifically asked people why others weren't Christian. It only seems that Jen and others would respond to Zjab's own response with further dialogue. In contrast, my columns have been mostly independent -- or respond to other people's columns in an almost tangential way. So there's not quite the same flow of dialogue. In effect, I haven't left quite the same opening for such "conversion attempts" (though to be honest, I think that labeling the comments left for Zjabs as such might be a bit of a stretch). So in essence, we're probably comparing apples and oranges here.

However, if we step beyond these two scenarios involving Zjabs, myself, and the other members of WOTL, I am inclined to agree that the way many Christians approach people who don't believe in any religion often differs from the way they approach those who follow a different religion. In fact, while there are small groups and individuals within Christianity that are focused on "reaching out" to people of other religions (one example of this in regards to the Pagan religions is Exwitch Ministries), it seems to me that most Christians are focused on convincing the atheists and the agnostics that they should become Christian. And I think that there are a number of closely related reasons for this.

I think that the most central reason for this is that in our country's history, Christianity has had the luxury of being the only religion (or at least the only noticeable one) around. As such, Christians got used to thinking they're the "only game in town," the only religion, if you will. (And in fairness, I've run into several agnostics and atheists who seem to hold a similar view on some level.) Even the Jewish religion was seen as not being all that different, and trying to evangelize Jews just focused around convincing them that Jesus really was the Messiah. As such, Christian apologetics has only had to focus on convincing the unbeliever or skeptic of the validity of Christian doctrine. And to this day, the average Christian has access to plenty of material designed to woo the atheist, the agnostic, and any other kind of "unbeliever."

However, now that Christians are finding themselves once again living in a pluralistic society, they are discovering that they are not as prepared to respond to someone who doesn't just disbelieve, but actually believes something else. The same arguments that woo an atheist or agnostic are not as effective -- assuming they're effective at all -- on a Hindu, a Buddhist, or a Pagan. And I think that because of this, a lot of Christians choose to focus on evangelizing those they already have the "tools" to evangelize.

As an aside, I will note that many who do try and convert people who follow a different religion tend to try to do so in a sort of "two-phase" process. In this process, they start by trying to demonstrate why the individual's religion is wrong, doesn't make sense, or is otherwise inferior. Once this first "phase" is done, they then resort to the same material they would use to evangelize someone who was an agnostic. To be honest, I haven't found this approach all that impressive, and I suspect it's only effective with "tentative believers" in other religions, anyway.

Another result of this history of Christianity being "the only game in town" for so long is that a natural friction or rivalry between the Christians and the atheists and agnostics has developed over time. I have watched several discussions between these two groups, and it has been the rare case where the discussion didn't devolve into both sides trying to prove themselves to be right and other to be wrong. It also seems to me that far too many people on "both sides of the fence" prefer this conflict, and take efforts to keep the trend alive. The end result is that both Christians and atheists and agnostics seem to be conditioned to expect this rivalry to pop up, prepare for it, and as a result, generate a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. In the rare cases where the old rivalry doesn't rear its ugly head, I've noted that it's usually due to the fact that key people on both sides of the discussion make concerted efforts to avoid it.

And finally, I do think that Zjabs is right in that people find any belief to be more comprehensible than a complete lack of beliefs. Christians may disagree with my polytheistic and magical views, but at least they can intellectually understand it. Trying to understand how someone can not believe in anything. To be perfectly honest, I have a bit of trouble in grasping that, myself. I can certainly understand not believing in any specific religion because of the lack of a compelling (to them, at least) reason to believe in them. I can even understand someone not believing in God or not being skeptical about the nature of such a God if God exists. But I do have trouble grasping the more hardcore atheists who are absolutely convinced there is no God.

This past weeken, I watched Lattere Days. This is a tale about a gay man, Christian, living in Los Angeles who meets, sets out to bed, and eventually falls in love with anotehr young man by the name of Aaron. Of course, Christian's plans are complicated by the fact that Aaron is a missionary for the LDS church, just starting his two year mission.

The remarkable part about this movie is that it's not just a movie about a young man from a religiously conservative background coming to terms with his sexual orientation and being excommunicated from his church (and presumably biological) family. This is also a movie wherein a cynical and superficial gay man begins to take a closer look at his own life and initiates a search to give it deeper meaning. In effect, this movie seeks to strike the balance between criticizing harmful repression and taking an honest look at the emptiness that can come from the superficiality we sometimes fall into while trying to escape the latter. In effect, both boys face their own demons as a result of coming into each others lives.

The scenes between Aaron and his mother after he's found out and sent home are well done. Particularly, the scene where Aaron challenges his mother to actually look at him is quite incredible, and something that I think most gay people with religiously (or otherwise) conservative parents can appreciate on some level. Of course, even Aaron's mother has her moment, when confronted with Christian's act of love in coming to Idaho just to tell her how sorry he is for the loss of her son (at this point, Christian was falsely led to believe that Aaron had committed suicide).

This was truly a touching movie, and one I think many people will be able to connect with on one level or another.

I don't normall do "cut and paste" columns. However, Juliaki's insights on this particular topic was too perfect not to share her words. I'm thankful for her graciousness in allowing me to repost them here.

I asked the gods for support and guidance on my path. I asked them to help build me up so that I could go higher than I was, and closer to them. From out of the sky, a shower of boulders slid from the mountain and blocked my path, a pile of boulders higher than my height by far. I raised my fists to the heavens and yelled up to the gods, "I have always been good in your service. I have always done the best that I could. Now, when I ask for your help to rise above the challenges of the world for just a moment, you put obstacles in my way! Why have you done this to me? I ask you to remove them at once!"

The gods whispered to me, with patience so plain, "What you see as obstacles are actually blessings on your path. These obstacles, as you call them, are there so that you may use the will that we gave you to climb up and to rise above the challenges of the world for a moment. If you faced the challenges we gave you with the strength of spirit we put within you and worked through them with the courage of one who does instead of one who makes excuses, you would have risen above this challenge and been granted the wisdom of a wise vista."

"But you asked for your path to be clear, and it shall be given to you."

And with that, the boulders disappeared, leaving a flat road ahead of me. A road that looked the same as before, flat and unchanging. A road on which I could rise no higher, for I had rejected blessings as curses and demanded that convenience outweigh growth.

Last Tuesday, I led the weekly meditation at the POC for the first time. Well, that's not entirely true. I was the de facto leader back on 11 July, the first night we ever held the weekly meditation group. However, I "cheated" that night and just played a CD of soft music, allowing everyone to meditate on their own. Last week was the first time that I actually took a more active role and led the group through a guided meditation. I found a written out meditation online that a group had posted after using it as a part of their Lammas ritual in a previous year, and printed it out to use.

I have to admit that it was somewhat of a frightening experience. While I have had a decent amount of experience meditating on my own and have even participated in a guided meditation, I had never acted as the leader in such a setting. To be honest, earlier that Tuesday, I sat at my desk asking myself why I let Michele and Belinda ever talk me into doing this.

But I rose to the challenge, set aside my own worries about my lack of experience and did what needed to be done. And the meditation turned out pretty good that night. I wouldn't say I did a perfect job, but I managed to perform well enough that everyone seemed to appreciate the experience. Two of those attending even commenting that it was the perfect meditation for them to go through due to the things they were dealing with in their own lives.

What a relief! It's comforting to know that I will be okay with this. I feel more confident that I will do okay when my turn to lead the group rolls around again. I know that things will go fine. I know that I'm ready to take on this and other responsibilities, despite my insecurities.

All the same, I'm glad that Æthon is in charge of tomorrow night's meditation.

I'm not sure how many people read this blog any more. I know I've been silent for almost a month now. To be honest, I've logged in to write something several times since my last entry, but have never been able to get past the blank textbox.

This is one of those cases where many aspects of my life have caused me to turn inward, to work on projects and go through things that I'm not ready to post about yet. There's just so much going on that still needs to be worked out in the stillness of my own mind before broadcast to the world, and as such, I leave what readers I may have wondering what's going on.

What I can say is that my spiritual life is getting rather interesting right now. There are certain things that I need to work on and certain changes in my life that I'm making in order to prepare for the "next big step." At some point, I hope to talk about some of that. But for now, I must leave it at this simple teaser.

I'm also working on a writing project, which I have several guides telling me will eventually coalesce into a publishable book. However, I'm in the very early stages of that process. Currently, I'm at the point where the project involves me spending regular times with a separate journal (as opposed to my "everyday" one) and writing about past experiences, people, and choices that I can remember, and my emotional reactions to them. It's been both a rewarding and trying process, as not all of the memories or the realizations related to them are entirely comfortable. They're not exactly painful, either. But they take a bit of processing at times.

One of the interesting things is that as I continue with this project, I find myself remembering little things that I had completely forgotten about, things that I haven't thought about in a decade or more. That in itself can be a bit shocking. Of course, on the flip side, it's also nice to suddenly discover that I have more memories of my life before high school than I might've thought. They're just there waiting to be found.

Of course, a side effect of this process is that I find myself growing nostalgiac. I find myself wondering what ever happened to old friends, old school chums, and even an old lover or two. I find myself wondering what kind of people they are today. After all, it's been at least a decade since I've seen some of them.

You can't go home again. But at least you can visit. Even if only in your mind.

Just last night, I started participating on a religious discussion message board on another site. I've met some interesting people, but I've also noticed there seems to be a very large contingent of people who are using the sight for a good bit of ego-stroking and demonstrating their own "spiritual superiority" (whether it takes the form of righteousness or enlightenment) at the expense of others. It makes for a harsh evironment, in many ways. I'm just hoping that those of us who are interested can create enough positive discussion to make it worthwhile.

But the big thing I noticed was how easy it would be for me to slip into the same kind of posturing. Each time I read an ego-driven post there, I find myself sorely tempted, almost eager, to tear the person down, with the painful realization that my own motives at heart are equally ego-driven. It troubles me how easily I could fall into that same trap just by being around it.

As such, I need to work on guarding myself against that temptation.

Deck: Robin Wood Tarot
Card: Seven of Swords

A man shrouded in a gray hooded cloak is climbing over a waist-high stone wall. Only eyes, nose, and mouth are visible from within the hood, wearing a scowl that suggests anger and bitterness. Sticking out from beneath the man's cloak are four swords, while a line of tents is visible in the background, suggesting an encampment from which the man stole his treasures. His left boot rests on a flat surface of stone that sticks out halfway down the visble side of the wall, aiding the man in his escape.

This sword speaks of ill-begotten gain, both material and intanglible things which we have aquired in less than honorable ways. Like the man on the card, we sneak away feeling that we have gained something, but at the expense of our own integrity. Most often, these occasions occur when we feel that we are due something and have been cheated out of it. After all, the expression on the man's face makes it clear that he feels that his pilfered blades are rightfully his. Perhaps he too feels that he was beguiled out of them unjustly and sees his thievery merely as the best way to rectify the situation.

However, this card reminds us that even the right result achieved in less than honorable ways robs us of something greater. While the man may be collecting what is rightfully his, his methods of doing so shall permanently mar him as someone who is slippery and less than trustworthy. Indeed, the relatively small size of his stepping stone in the escape -- barely