It was .. amusing. And sad to see a thinker I once respected be so wrong. Below is the text of an e-mail I just sent in response:
Paganism is simply the natural gravity of the human spirit, the line of least resistance, religion in its fallen state.
Paganism is actually the first and most pervasive religious idea of all human cultures. It's a religion based in the universal revelation of nature, not a claimed “special revelation” given to only a few. Kreeft's elitist position is common among those who think they are among those who understand the special revelation, but it is simple arrogance.
There were at least three elements in the old paganism that made it great. And all three are missing in the new paganism
I said this in my briefer response, but I'll reiterate it here: Kreeft has no idea of what modern paganism is. All through this piece he is actually talking about materialism, humanism and fuzzy New-Age spirituality. At no point does he even come close to talking about actual modern paganism.
I will point out specific examples as we go.
This natural modesty and respect contrast sharply with the arrogant attitude of the new pagan in the modern West. Only Oriental societies still preserve a traditional reverence. The West does not understand this, and thinks it quaint at best and hypocritical at worst.
The new paganism is the virtual divinization of man, the religion of man as the new God. One of its popular slogans, repeated often by Christians, is “the infinite value of the human person.” Its aim is building a heaven on earth, a secular salvation. Another word for the new paganism is humanism, the religion that will not lift up its head to the heavens but stuffs the heavens into its head.
Kreeft is correct here that he is talking about humanism, but utterly wrong when he equates that to “the new paganism.”
Modern pagan religions are exemplified in Druidic organizations such as ar n'Draiocht Fein (of which we are members), various national and local heathen organizations such as The Troth, and many unaffiliated solitaries. While it is of course impossible to speak for everyone, I can say that the organizations at least put a great emphasis on piety. Honoring the deities, ancestors and spirits of the land is a core part of the praxis.
I have heard more discussion of and interest in personal piety through ADF than I ever did as a Christian.
So the gods and goddesses are “something greater than yourself.” Reverence for nature is another core aspect of modern paganism, which is also something greater than ourselves – the planet was here for billions of years before us and will be here for billions of years after we're gone – if that's not something bigger than ourselves, then I don't know what it is.
The real problem Kreeft has – or would have if he knew what he was talking about – is not that modern pagans lack piety, but that the object of the piety isn't Jesus. For him to criticize it on that score, coming from a Catholic perspective, would be a valid point of debate. But claiming that that element is absent just betrays his lack of concern for accuracy.
(It is also kind of rich for him to call paganism “arrogant” in the midst of this tirade.)
A second ingredient of the old paganism that’s missing in the new is an objective morality, what C.S. Lewis called “the Tao” in his prophetic little classic “The Abolition of Man.” To pre-modern man, pagan as well as Christian, moral rules were absolute: unyielding and unquestionable. They were also objective: discovered rather than created, given in the nature of things.
This has all changed. The new paganism is situational and pragmatic. It says we are the makers of moral values. It not only finds the moral law written in the human heart but also by the human heart. It acknowledges no divine revelation, thus no one’s values can be judged to be wrong.
The new paganism’s favorite Scripture is “judge not.” The only judgment is the judgment against judging. The only thing wrong is the idea that there is a real wrong.
The only thing to feel guilty about is feeling guilty. And, since man rather than God is the origin of values, don’t impose “your” values on me (another favorite line).
This is really polytheism — many gods, many goods, many moralities. No one believes in Zeus and Apollo and Neptune any more. (I wonder why: Has science really refuted them—or is it due to total conformity to fashion, supine submission to newspapers?) But moral relativism is the equivalent of the old polytheism. Each of us has become a god or goddess, a giver of law rather than receiver.
Again, he is here talking about humanism, not paganism. Modern pagans believe in objective morality as much as their forbears did (which may be a bit less than Kreeft claims.) Modern pagans believe in a number of moral principles quite firmly, although it is true that we tend less toward legalistic lists of forbidden behaviors than some Christians prefer.
But you will not find a serious pagan who does not embrace a set of moral values. We believe very strongly in the importance of acting with honor, courage, honesty, loyalty and integrity, and we believe, most of us, that one's choices affect one's future – the principle of wyrd, for example, is an ancient concept of the old saying that “choices make habits, habits make character.”
Again, Kreeft's real complaint is not that paganism lacks morality, just that it doesn't derive its moral code from the Bible and Church teachings.
Kreeft's final paragraph of the above quoted section deserves special attention. Here is is again:
This is really polytheism — many gods, many goods, many moralities.
Didn't he just get finished telling us how pagans are all the same and easily reduced to generalizations, as he has done for this entire column?
But moral relativism is the equivalent of the old polytheism. Each of us has become a god or goddess, a giver of law rather than receiver.
Didn't he open this section by saying that the old paganism – which IS “the old polytheism” – had this objective morality? And now he closes by saying the exact opposite? How does he get away with this lazy thinking?
No one believes in Zeus and Apollo and Neptune any more.
Well actually yes, many people do believe in Zeus, Apollo and Neptune. And Woden and Thunor, Arianhrod and The Morrigan, Jupiter and Mars. That is what the “new paganism” is, and this statement alone is enough to show that Kreeft has not got the slightest understanding of his topic.
A third ingredient of the old paganism but not of the new is awe at something transcendent, the sense of worship and mystery. What the old pagan worshiped differed widely — almost anything from Zeus to cows—but he worshiped something. In the modern world the very sense of worship is dying, even in our own liturgy, which sounds as if it were invented by a Committee for the Abolition of Poetry.
Our religious sense has dried up. Modern religion is de-mythologized, de-miraclized, de-divinized. God is not the Lord but the All, not transcendent but immanent, not super-natural but natural.
Pantheism is comfortable, and this is the modem summum bonum. The Force of “Star Wars” fame is a pantheistic God, and it is immensely popular, because it’s “like a book on the shelf,” as C.S. Lewis put it: available whenever you want it, but not bothersome when you don’t want it. How convenient to think we are bubbles in a divine froth rather than rebellious children of a righteous divine Father!
Pantheism has no sense of sin, for sin means separation, and no one can ever be separated from the All. Thus the third feature, no transcendence, is connected with the second, no absolute morality.
The new paganism is a great triumph of wishful thinking. Without losing the thrill and patina of religion, the terror of religion is removed. The new paganism stoutly rejects “the fear of God.” Nearly all religious educators today, including many supposedly Catholic ones, are agreed that the thing the Bible calls “the beginning of wisdom” is instead the thing we must above all eradicate from the minds of the young with all the softly destructive power of the weapons of modern pop psychology — namely, the fear of the Lord.
And again … whatever he is criticizing here, it is not modern paganism. Modern paganism believes in gods and goddesses and another, spiritual, world – transcendence. While some modern pagans may count themselves pantheists, it's certainly not a universal position.
No sense of worship? “The new paganism” celebrates eight seasonal high days – specifically which ones, their names and their meanings (Lammas or Lughnasadh in August, for example) – vary from person to person, but their importance is consistent. Done well, they evoke exactly that sense of awe and mystery he doesn't think is there. In addition, most modern pagans maintain some kind of home shrine and hold their own individual observances regularly – some even daily.
I will admit that the “Committee for the Abolition of Poetry” is a good line, but this sounds like a Catholic problem to me. As I said above in the discussion of piety, I've been encouraged to put more thought into worship as a pagan, both in a group and alone, than I ever was as a Christian. Modern paganism, seriously practiced, demands study, thought and engagement, which means a lot of contemplation about the meaning of piety, the significance of worship. You can't just show up.
The new paganism is winning not by opposing but by infiltrating the Church.
Actually, the new paganism has no interest in “winning” or in the Church. Nobody is trying to steal your children's souls or infiltrate your pews.
The so-called “New Age Movement” combines all the features described under the title of the new paganism. It’s a loosely organized movement, basically a flowering of ’60s hippiedom, rather than a centralized agenda. But strategies are connected in three places. There may be no conspiracy on earth to unify the enemies of the Church, but the strategy of hell is more than the strategy of earth. Only one thing is more than the strategy of hell: the strategy of heaven.
And here we have it – he thinks paganism and “New Age” are the same, and that it's of the devil.
As Spidey would have put it in a bygone era: 'Nuff said.