Not All Pagans Are Nature-Oriented
I found this article a while back (or, according to OneNote, “a long time ago”), and had been meaning to share it. The author of this article is a Kemetic Reconstructionist, a follower of the reconstructed religion of Kemet as it was practiced thousands of years ago in what is now known widely as ancient Egypt.
It is a common misconception that all Pagans are of a “nature-oriented” religion. This simply is not the case. While yes, most of those who are Pagan, in our area especially, are Wiccan, which is a heavily nature-oriented path, there are those of us in the community who simply do not fit that bill.
Being a Modern Kemetic, I worship the Neteru, the Gods and Goddesses of Kemet, now so well known as ancient Egypt. My beliefs, methods of worship, of prayer, of rites and rituals vary so much from what most concider “the norm.” The religion itself varies so much from what most people percieve Paganism as, and even from the more well-known Kemetic faiths such as the Kemetic Orthodox and Kemetic Reconstructionism.
I did have my start in my studies with Wicca, but it never truly sat well with me. As I walked my path, I eventually found what was right for me, and watched it unfold before me. It’s been an adventure, as anyone’s path should be, and the knowledge I’ve gained from my first stumbling years has granted me an understanding of how different our perceptions can really be.
*************************************************
On Reconstruction and “Nature-Orientation”
I’ve finally managed to pin down one of the reasons that “well, the reconstructions are nature-oriented too, the Gods are personifications of natural phenomena” or “tied to natural phenomena” bothers me.
It’s disrespectful of the Gods. It diminishes Them, it reduces them to less than They are.
Most of the Gods have theophanies or symbols that are natural forms, yes, but that does not distinguish their forms and symbols strongly. Stars, doves, beasts of burden such as Burak, flaming vegetation — similar things from more mainstream religions. And if the point of more abstract symbols or those derived from manmade objects is raised, remember that the ankh, symbol of life and frequently prated about as some sort of unification of male and female principles or some similar hogwash, is a slightly abstracted representation of a sandal strap. Prosaic, manufactured, and pretty damn boring.
But back to the main thing: The myths that are bound up with the natural world and natural cycles are, for the most part, merely parts of the nature of the Gods, manifestations of portions of Their domains. When I see someone point at Proserpine and Her cycle as evidence of the nature focus of reconstructionist religions, I wonder how She feels about being treated as just a calendar.
Merely knowing the natural affiliations or associations of a God is not sufficient to know the God; they often derive from the God’s core nature rather than being that nature. If I say that Set is God of storms, of the desert, of the darkness, that is not sufficient to understand His domain unless one is exceptionally good at riddles. If I add to that that He governs the queer, unusual, and deviant; that He protects the left-handed and favors the redhead, that He is considered to be God of foreigners, then the picture becomes more complicated, less tied to hostile forces of the natural world. If I give chaos, destruction, the role of tester and challenger, the One who makes certain that the king is strong enough to face the job of kingship, still greater complexity. If He is named as the one who is ultimately responsible for the protection of that which is, the one who is capable of facing the forces of annihilation and unmaking and defeating them, one is left entirely in the realms of the philosophical and mystical, without natural referents at all.
Somewhere in there one can find the mysteries that are the core of this God, can come to know Him as fully Himself. If one stays stuck on just the projections of that core into the world of nature, the playing field has been limited too much to meet Him face to face. Yes, Set storms; it is His nature to do so, and one can meet Him there, but not if He is just the storm, if that is the sole, central most, or essentially defining thing. He is not a “God of nature”; His manifestations include portions of the natural world, but then again, Whose don’t?
Of course, at the same time as this, I find myself baffled by the Gods who are cut off from their manifestations in the natural world in the way many people look at them. When people speak of Wesir, I hear a lot of “God of the dead” and very little of His angry declaration to the Gods that it is by His will and nature that the grain that feeds Them grows — so They had better do right by His son. The regenerative power, the nature of the sown grain, His mysteries of the hidden green, those I rarely hear people mention. Baffles me no end.
Many of the ancient Gods were city Gods, dealing with the concerns of settled people. The Gods of Greece came into conflict over patronage of cities; They had territories, shrines, personal quirks that depended on the particular histories of Their time in those places.
Yes, there were agricultural festivals and the passage of the natural year, but that is a human trait, not something particular to paganisms, ancient or modern. I know that there are rituals and prayers for the planting in the Catholic Church, because I looked the bloody things up a while back. That this is not common knowledge and common concern is mostly a sign that much of the population is not strongly involved in agricultural cycles these days, not a distinguishing mark between religious categories.
And there are festivals of heroes or military victories, the accessions of leaders, and similar things. Human things, things that are the byproducts of human culture and human decisions and human institutions. Nothing in the natural world demands the celebration of the sed festival or the commemoration of Marathon.
Source: Unknown
