One of my more popular essays that I since archived was titled “Why I am not a Christian” it was a response to a gentlemen who claimed that anti-Christian people often refused to consider Christian beliefs. In that essay, which long time subscribes can dig up in their email, I explained that I had actually attempted to become a Christian. That I had seriously engaged with the faith, attended (Orthodox) Church services, and read a variety of material. It was actually largely though reading and thinking about “The Sayings of the Desert Fathers” that I realized I could not become a Christian and thus abandoned my efforts. This was a powerful moment for me that is hard to express adequately in words but suffice to say it was very much a vitalist choice for me to get up and leave the service and a sense of calm came over me. I had been fighting against something in that attempted journey. I say all this to give context that I am not a neutral observer of the recent go-around between Christians and Pagans that occasionally pops up on Substack. This one seemingly prompted by Astral’s podcast interview with Dave, Tristan, and Mike.
With that being said I thought I’d still try and offer some kind of evaluation of the nature of the discourse this time around. A number of arguments crop up from both sides and I’ve wanted to make some observations on the relative strength of these for some time, so why not now. There is no real order to these claims in terms of importance.
Claim: “You should follow in the tradition of your ancestors and convert to Christianity”
This refrain is incredibly common from Christians when talking to Pagans. It comes up when Pagans talk about the tradition (with a small t) of our pre-Christian ancestors and I understand why Christians make it. It comes off as a bit of a poor attempt at a ‘gotcha’ meme type argument though and I don’t find it convincing for a simple reason.
It is really not far removed from me asking an Orthodox or Catholic convert who come from a long line of Protestants when they are going to follow tradition and subsequently convert to Protestantism. The argument defeats itself if we are claiming that an ancestor converting dictates a tradition that should be followed. Some people of course come from families that have been Catholic since the ‘beginning’ but for most of Europe they would have began as what we think of as Orthodox and then in the West become Catholic and then become Protestant and then splintered even further.
In sum this isn’t a very convincing argument and is just a meme gotcha attempt to be snide. It would look better for Christians to stop attempting to use this argument.
Claim: “Christianity is a foreign religion that has no place in Europe”
There are many variants to this and all stem from the foreign nature of the origins of Christianity. There is of course some truth to this but as a hardline argument it erodes over time. Both Pagans and (most) Christians would acknowledge that Europe has influenced Christianity as much as Christianity has influenced Europe. There are prodigious scholarly works done on this that are often quoted by more sensible people in the debate. The reason this argument isn’t so convincing to me is that whatever you believe our recent history has been strongly influenced by Christianity.
For better or worse it has become part of the story of European people and it has inspired some truly beautiful buildings, works of art, music and so on and so forth. Much of what I consider great about European civilization does have roots in Christianity being the dominant religion and idea of the age. It has motivated a great many European people who didn’t cease to be European because they were Christian. It has a place and if we are honest much of our morality is still Christianity coded. In short I think most Pagans aren’t actually iconoclasts who would move to destroy the Churches or paintings of course but at this point Christianity has been part of the European story and it’s natural for Europeans to be drawn to it for normal reasons.
This argument has some sway but it isn’t really this killer blow that some Pagans think. It collapses completely if the Christian believes in the ontological truth of their faith. The Christian who can own this and say “Yes, it didn’t originate in Europe but it is true for all peoples” in my mind has adequately addressed and dismissed this argument. Pagans may not like that answer and see more value in the material connection of blood but the answer given is honest and logical for the faith. Christians who hand wave and pontificate about the Jewish origins of the faith do themselves no favors either.
Claim: “You don’t really believe in the Gods do you?”
I think this is the weirdest argument to hear another religious person make to another. Truly it is baffling. Do Christians have the gumption to ask Muslims on the regular if they “really actually believe in Allah”?
The Christian who snidely attempts this when engaging with Pagans is channeling a fedora atheist attitude who would ask him the same thing. It’s just a non starter as an honest question, both sides should have the good manners to assume that each believe their God(s) is/are real entities.
It is ok to clarify elements of that belief but to assume that Pagans are just “archetype” believers out of hand is just wildly dishonest and uncharitable. Of course some people might mislabel themselves as Pagans and then be evasive, but I have to say I’ve met some Christians like this as well. People also do undergo journeys with their faith, some people might start off as an atheist and become a Christian but on Day 1 of their journey they may not have actually believed in God, merely wanted to.
Claim: “Christianity is Jewish”
Christianity has Jewish roots. Some might want to be provocative and call it a Jewish heresy (I think Jews themselves would also use this framing?). Is it Jewish though? Well no it clearly isn’t. Judaism doesn’t accept Christ. Jews also don’t eat pork, that is a clear law and part of their faith and culture. Christianity to this extent has a break with the old orders given. Both in theory and practice the two are different faiths.
There is a more interesting debate to have if the Christian God and the Jewish God are one and the same. You might strongly believe that to be the case. There seems decent evidence to suggest that is a fair interpretation. We could be charitable and assume that through Christ God himself remade himself, can an all powerful God change? Why not? Perhaps Yahweh was a facet of his personality he shed. I don’t intend to be flippant here at all but to suggest if you have an open mind there are some alternative explanations offered.
At the core of it we know the Jews rejected that Christ was the Son of God. There is a clear split at that moment and a new faith is born. Pagans who lazily assert it is Jewish as a kind of gotcha should work to be more precise about this and why they consider it an issue. There are some lines of argument that make good sense but the lazy reflexive anti-Jewish reasoning spat out without much thought is by and large unconvincing and dumb. There has been hundreds of years of tensions between Christians and Jews and most European Christians were against the Jews as Christ killers. A lot of Pagans I think gloss over some of this historical animosity that existed.
Claim: “You Can’t Reconstruct Paganism”
This claim is sometimes accompanied by people attempting to group truly novel inventions like Wicca in with what reconstructionist Heathen groups are doing. This is dishonest and a bad faith approach. One would assume that the Christian understands there is value in archeology and one thing secular archeologists do is also attempt to understand and reconstruct forgotten elements of the past. They may never be entirely sure of some things but the discipline and study of similar cultures and practices often can move use closer to what is known. Reconstructionist approach by a religious heathen is on similar lines.
I’m far from an expert on this BUT I think most Christians who make this argument simply haven’t spent anytime reading what groups and individuals have been doing for years now. There is significant work being done. Not only that but we do have broad range of historical sources around the myths which we know come from Pagans:
To be sure there is going to be a degree of unknowableness in a reconstructionist project but the Christian who claims it is all made up by individual practitioners is just ignoring developments and an evolution of work being done. This is a puzzle that people are attempting to solve by looking at historical sources, archeological finds and such not just being conjured out of nothingness. Certain branches of Paganism of course are more obscure and lost in the mists of time like Celtic beliefs or what we actually know about the Druids of pre-Roman Britain. Much of what is written about the Druids is romantic notions of the Elizabethan age.
This claim ultimately relies upon the legitimacy of the Bible as being the source that has remained constant for 2000+ years but again what is interesting is that the same Bible produces radically different experiences of what Christianity is. An Orthodox service, of which I have attended many, is totally alien to a mega Church service or a Southern Baptist church. Let us not mention Quakers even. The supposed authority derived from the Bible as being true alone sees many variations in worship style and practice.
There are reconstructionist elements of the faith but this argument is often made in ignorance of the actual work being done by many.
Claim: Our Religion is Growing
Both sides make this argument actually. It’s contained within much of the debates and disputes. At the risk of upsetting both parties here I think religion is still stagnant or in decline. Pagans argue that their faith is ascendant and I think what is accurate is that more outspoken people are writing and talking and generating ideas and projects about it. In terms of absolute numbers they are a tiny minority and akin to Christianity have more than their fair share of cringe leftist types trying to make the faith gay and equality orientated. Christianity is still in decline in the West, at least among Europeans. I have a friend who converted to Orthodoxy and as such over the last few years met other men from his Church. Certainly that congregation has grown with young men but there are no young women. It is hard to express how depressing it was to hear these lonely men who joined in part hoping to meet a woman who thinks like them only to find a few. The stories I heard about the few women their age at Church are no different to carousel riding secular women bar the lack of sex. If anything these women had more power and choice over these men and it was quite sad to see.
Both religions I think don’t have a real passion for evangelism. For Catholics and Orthodox most of the people I’ve met who converted did so on a personal journey not due to particular outreach or impact that these congregations or Churches had in their wider communities, though I’m sure there are exceptions. If Orthodox Churches can only attract young men they will stagnate quickly if those young men can’t bring women into the Church from the secular world. Much of the Church leadership has not got a clue how to advise young men on just how to do that.
Simply put I think the secular age of nihilism has longer to run still.
Concluding remarks
Hopefully I’ve tried to be relatively balanced here in calling out weak claims from both sides. Or at least I see them as weak claims.
Belief and faith are both private and public things. Deeply personal yet also communal.
Making arguments against or for faiths can get confused with arguments about impacts. The two are interwoven more often than not.
A Christian who believes Jesus Christ died for his sins and believes his faith is the ontological truth is not going to become a Pagan because a Pagan points out his faith originated in the Middle East. However a Christian should be open to understanding how the revolutionary ideas of his faith have influenced secular modernity because that doesn’t invalidate it entirely.
A lot of the debate swirls around pointlessly driven by the fact people like arguing about such things. Neither side has a good answer about HOW a person becomes religiously inclined or what prompts actual belief. Every example told by either side is necessarily anecdotal and ranges from reading the Bible to being convinced by Aquinas or a moment of personal revelation. My own Pagan leanings come from how I was raised by secular parents who read me the Greek and Norse myths and Aesop’s fables. The Bible existed only as a memento of my fathers from his school days. We celebrated Christmas in that secular fashion but with those curious pagan relics present. My father taking great joy in finding mistletoe or holly to decorate with. I am not so arrogant as to think had I been raised in a more Christian household that would change my outlook and general disposition.
My own other belief is that religiosity itself is a kind of trait that exists in unequal form amongst humans. It’s like aggression or intellect. Some people have more of it than others and some have less.