PAGAN CHRIST

PAGAN CHRIST By Alexander Storrsson

As I get older, I drift less around my now relatively longstanding conviction that there's a lot of good in Jesus.

I also drift less around my admission that, religiously, I must be some kind of "pagan," or altogether out of the game of "religion" (with its politics, fancy dress, meaningless speculation and empty theorising) and firmly entrenched in what I could only call "obsession with divinity."

I have no words for what I "know;" I cannot communicate what I "feel" (not directly, anyway); I am only increasingly devoid of doubt as to what This is, where "This" is - "This," this world, this universe, this existence. Reality.

In the ancient days, in Raedwald's Kingdom, they brought Christ to the Pagans. And the Pagans said "corr, this guy seems alright. Here, put a shrine up to him next to the one to Odin."

Christ was incorporated into the Pagan pantheon because the reality of Christ was in no way at odds with the Pagan pantheon. Self-sacrifice in the name of common good is a very Pagan virtue. The Druids recognised Christ immediately as yet another fulfilment of the archetype of God emerging from within Man's midst - a common trope in Celtic myth.

Indeed, many are the tales of acceptance and incorporation of Christ into Pagan pantheons, both in Europe and further abroad; it is only a severe misfortune that the politicised weapon called "Christianity" should have prevailed subsequently in so many places, at the expense of Tradition.

The figure of Jesus, the import of the Christ, and the history of the churches are different things. I cannot condone a great deal of what has been done "in the name of Christ," much as I must denounce much that has been done "in the name of Odin," "in the name of Buddha," "in the name of Mohammed" etc. I do not think it is fair to tar these figures with the brush of their followers' insanities.

In the past few hundred years it has become normal to recognise that "religions," as vast, often competing in-groups, at best balance their good with evil; at worst, they are generally vehicles of evil, flying directly in the face of what they profess to worship. Good comes from the religious, not always because of their religion, but frequently despite it.

As a "Pagan" I am concerned with utility, not with appearance: to me, function is more beautiful than form. Form always decays; function must take on new forms over time. Religions are but forms; their function is to fix the mind on its source (a good definition of "God," I wager).

The function of the Christ is much like the function of Krishna, who indeed says of himself, "whenever there is diminution in dharma (righteousness), I will come forth in the flesh and present the right way of living." It is my conviction that Odin and the Buddha were such. Mohammed might easily have been such. Guru Nanak and Guru Gobind Singh were such. A million might have been and gone, and only some few recognised for what they were: but they were all That, and they knew it, and lived it.

I do not know how to differentiate between a "God," if it is something I cannot experience, and a man, which is something I can experience. I have seen "God-men" - I have seen men (and women) who exhibit the characteristics of divinity: pure of culture, empty of intent, immaculately loving, who rectify by their mere being. Not even a word is necessary. I have seen, within a generation or two, people twist whatever words they did pronounce to their own ends, but even then something of the original power persists and eclipses these interpretations. There is a real "mysterious force" at work with these individuals. They exist to this day.

This is what I imagine the "real Jesus" must have been. This is what the real Krishna was, whoever or however many figures were involved. This was the reality of Odin, a hundred times over. Again, a million may manifest in time to proclaim this song, a million languages they might intone, but each will be singing from the same sheet. The "God" that stands as the culmination and inspiration of these real individuals is yet more real than them: they are testament to it, their lives prove it. That is why they are powerful, memorable, and worthy of remembering: they inspire us to be like them. We raise them up as examples, and make sacrifices to them - physical, mental, or other forms of sacrifice - for they are "Gods," "ones to whom oblations are owed."

The Pantheon reflects the One as Many: the aim is to recognise the One in the Many. Many forms share one power: there is one life, one electricity, which imbues each living thing. The Pagan philosophers know this as the "highest God," of which all other Gods, demigods, humans and such forth are descendants, expressions - forms. Jesus Christ is such a form. Whether myth or reality, what is being spoken of there is true: "I Am the light and the way." The clue is with us forever: that which fills us, which makes us living, is both the clue and the goal. Whether we seek "eternal life," "liberation," "dissolution," "enlightenment," here is the clue and the goal, already with us: "I Am, I know myself to Be." It takes religion to make these things confusing. It is only as simple as Being, and, thence, "enjoying one's self" - keeping your thoughts, Huginn and Muninn, with you, Othinn. No truly divine being has ever said different; they have only said it differently, according to language and culture. To present some form of conclusion, I will say this: my Paganism, if it is a religion, is such a broad, sweeping thing, that it is the Religion of Religions; and indeed, Christians of all denominations belong to but peculiar, very particular branches of my own religion. Christ is not alien to me, but very much corroborates my ancestors' Gods and what my immediate experience vouchsafes: unending Is-ness, free from conditioning. I simply neglect to limit Christ to (the body of) Jesus, since to do so seems blasphemous to me.

In terms of Tradition, the Abrahamist must understand: I am not an infidel or a denier. I simply refuse certain innovations that have crept up in the Age of Pisces. To me, it is the Abrahamic faiths that have departed from Tradition in their rejection of so many forms of God in favour of only one, or none at all. It is more normal, in the grand scheme of time, that the rose should be known as sweet, whatever name is given.

It is the same God now as it was 2,000, 20,000, 200,000 years ago: known by so many names (as stated in Grimnismal), but known to all peoples, for there is only One indweller. Christ is as good a name as any other; but I will not have it be the only name of the Unnameable. If I speak of Christ, I speak of the same that was in Odin, Buddha, Krishna, etc. - not a body, not a "person," but the living Life.

My Pantheon is made up of many faces of One God: One Being, of which you and I are manifestations. Our differences belie our core similarity, the thing which unites us and all else indefinitely: We Are. Paganism is a celebration of Being. I will have a Christian sit with me if he won't bore me with his insistences, but appreciate my acceptance.