PPPPS - see also:
PPS - as many people would not understand the slander of Paganism that comes with describing it is "neo"Paganism but not using neochristian, I am probably going to start using "pseudochristian" either in lieu of, or together with, neochristian. The points below apply fully to the new term.
PS - see also "Prisons with Stained Glass Windows: Untying the Bonds of Dogma - Embarking on the Path of Spirit", by David Howard.
I'm going to begin this by explaining that I make a strict division between:
neochristianity, in which group are those who have become rigid and unforgiving and covered with facades and all those who are greedy for power or materialistic influence, or abuse children, or in any way set limits or qualifications on Love,
and
Christianity, in which group I classify people who follow Christ's two simple laws, about loving one's neighbour and loving Deity. (The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu is an example of a genuine Christian, IMO)
I started thinking about this when I started thinking about the label "neo-Pagan" which people were imposing on me, and realised that a lot of what they were claiming could actually be directed at the hierarchies and wealthy, powerful structures which had been built up around what I now term neochristian. (Also, Paganism would unquestionably have evolved and changed over the last few centuries as it already had done before then, just as christianity did, with, for example, Protestantism, the development of the Quaker faith, etc, etc, etc.)
I'm going to give a "definition" I wrote some years ago for a book which I eventually decided not to finish (on regression-rescue - that will be part of a better book project, if I ever get time to finish it :) ). But first, I want to give references to posts where I have referred to or discussed these concepts:
Also, see this list of "20 reasons to abandon christianity". Given the viciousness of the neochristians in Australia's "postal survey" on Equal Marriage - including their hypocritical cries about religious freedom (what about the freedoms of those religions that support Equal Marriage?), the hostility I have experienced at local interfaith meetings, and the warnings about neochristians' role in the current psychic/spiritual war plaguing the planet, I've decided to set that path of working with other faiths aside - for now, at least.
Now, I have to begin this by pointing out two
things. Firstly, the definition I am going to give is my own, and is not in any
way an “official” definition – and will be disagreed with by Christians.
Secondly, I make a distinction between Christian, and neo-Christian.
Now, one of the attacks which tends to be
made on pagans is that they are really practising a “new form” of paganism, one
which lacks a trail of academic credentials back to the “original” forms of
paganism. That is true, paganism has changed – we no longer practice human
sacrifice (which some did – the Celts at the time of the Roman invasion of
Britain probably were head-hunters), but I think that can often be a good
thing, in that any form of faith may have to adapt to changing circumstances.
(It is, of course, highly arguable about how far one should or shouldn’t adapt
matters … )
Christianity has shown some adaptation to
suit changing circumstances – some Christian sects have women priests, and I
think most no longer follow the conditions in Leviticus about selling people
into slavery or stoning them to death.
In fact, I consider all the arguments that
get put up for paganism being referred to as “neo-paganism” apply also to
Christianity – particularly the lack of academically credible evidence from the
years of, and just after, Christ’s life.
However, the people I refer to as
“neo-Christians” are those who I consider have lost sight of Christs’ essential
message, which he summed up in words to the effect of:
“I
bring you a New Testament, with only two rules:
1. love your neighbour as yourself, and
2. love the Lord above all else.”
Those who I consider neo-Christians are those
who have lost sight of that, and instead focus on all the incredible minutiae
which has built up in the Christian churches over time – including rules over
who can or cannot be a priest, who can or cannot marry, who can or cannot talk
to God, what constitutes sacred or consecrated ground, what language services
should be held in, the aspects of God, free will vs. preordained conditions,
etc, etc, etc.
It’s all just waffle: Christ said it’s all
about LOVE.
There are some people who still do follow
Christ’s message, in my experience: those people are the ones I would be
pleased to call Christian. Unfortunately, they’re in the minority, and too many
are either “Sunday Christians”, people who praise the Lord and love on Sunday
and stab you in the back on Monday, or nominal Christians – people who, out of
habit or indoctrination, say they are Christian but don’t really care about
spirituality.
I don’t have a lot of respect for some of the
organised Christian structure (i.e., the various sects), but some do
happen to achieve a great deal in terms of care for the impoverished or needy –
and I am thinking of some of the South American churches in particular, here.
Others do a reasonable job, but taint all their efforts by hate – which is what
discrimination against LGBTIQ people, single mothers, etc is.
If I had to sum all this up, and give a
succinct and reasonably useful definition of “Christian”, it would be someone
who claims to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Now, if we move on to the subject of Jesus
Christ, I do believe it is likely that he did exist as a real,
historical person, that he did perform miracles (or what seemed like miracles
at the time), and that there is much that we do not know about this very
advanced soul. It may be that Jesus visited places such as Tibet, or survived
the crucifixion (as some claim), or was “married” and had a child (as was claimed in “The Holy Blood and the
Holy Grail” by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln
– and was later recycled in Dan Brown’s “The Da Vinci Code”),
or was a walk in (in the sense that
Christ was the new spirit, and Jesus the original – also advanced soul, but not
as far advanced J - inhabitant of the body [yes, I have heard such as suggestion –
in several places]), but I really don’t care – even if I were a Christian (and I did try to be, for a while … when I
was a kid), I wouldn’t care. The point is all about the New testament that
Christ brought, which is about LOVE.
See also... [deleted - cross reference to another section of that book] where I quote
Mohandas K. Gandhi’s comment to the effect of “I quite like your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are
so unlike your Christ”. As a pagan, I also found Gavin Andrews’ book “Paganism and Christianity” (pub.
Smashwords, 2011, ISBN 978-0-9871536-0-9) very interesting, particularly the
archaeological insights into the early Christian era.
