From the Archive ~ Thoughts on Being Called a Heretic (2013).

‘Interfaith Dialogue represents an important opportunity for us as Pagans to engage with the non-Pagan society in which we live, to represent our own community and to educate the wider community. By withdrawing from such engagement we deny ourselves that opportunity to correct the many misconceptions found amongst the non-Pagan community.

The two questions; why are we there and what is in it for us? Are valid and anyone has the right to ask them. To ask for a reason or rationale behind the investment of time by representatives of their community in this area, when there may be other issues that members of the Pagan Community feel more important, is reasonable.

The simple truth, if there is such a thing, is that we must seek out the opportunities to correct the misconceptions, play the establishment at its’ own game and emphasise that we the Pagan Community, demand equal consideration with all other sectors of society.’

Excerpt from my own article: Chattering Magpie (Griffith D.B.) 2012 In defence of Interfaith in Pentacle. Issue 35 Autumn 2012 pp32-34 which can be read here:

IN DEFENCE OF INTERFAITH

During a recent so called ‘private discussion’ on a Facebook wall, where in truth, nothing absolutely nothing is private and belonging to a Roman Catholic friend of mine, a complete stranger to me but obviously a Roman Catholic friend of my said friend, called me a Pagan and one other, an Anglican a heretic.

I will not bore the reader with the details, as in point of fact they have and the discussion itself had no real bearing upon the context of the usage of heretic. Rather I wish to emphasise that outside of history books and humour, this word is not generally heard in my circles. Certainly it is not used publically within Interfaith by Roman Catholics of my acquaintance, which is in itself a consolation.

A heretic is said to be one who’s opinion or views, are held to be contrary to the accepted teachings of the group to which they (may) belong. For heresy to be held theoretically valid as an accusation, both the accuser and the accused should be members of that same group.

For example the online dictionary known as ‘Wiktionary’ lists the noun heretic as; ‘someone who in the opinion of others believes contrary to the fundamental tenets of a religion he claims to belong to.’ Many other dictionaries, both physical and online share a similar opinion.

There are words, terminology and phases that when used may tell us more about the user than the person being described. For example it is said that Winston Churchill once described the Mahatma Ghandi as a ‘half naked Indian fakir.’

The first part of this statement is perfectly true, the Mahatma habitually wore only a cotton sheet and nothing more, he was quite obviously Indian. However, the use of the word fakir is here meant as a derogatory and disingenuous insult to describe a street entertainer or cheap conjuror. It is certainly not meant in a respectful manner to describe a Hindu Holy man. The phase a ‘half naked Indian fakir’ does no particular harm to the reputation of the Mahatma but instead, may reflect badly on the reputation of the man who would later become Britain’s War Time and greatest Prime Minister.

Men and women are a reflection of their time, in the sense that they reflect the society in which they live. The statement made by Churchill may strengthen our opinion of him as an Imperialist and quite possibly by our modern standards, as that of a racist. It also suggests that at the time others would have shared his opinion. His statement is a political one that is deliberately designed to appeal to others of a similar, if now outdated opinion.

Technically, from an historical perspective, a Roman Catholic calling an Anglican heretic could be deemed correct. The Anglican Church is part of that greater Protestant Movement, whose origins obviously lie with the Reformation and the ultimate break with the Church of Rome. From the perspective of a Roman Catholic therefore, a member of the Protestant Churches does hold opinion contrary to the accepted teachings of the group (Christianity), to which they both in theory belong. It is perhaps only fair to point out that again, from this historical perspective, a Protestant could call a Roman Catholic a heretic, as both believes that they themselves represent the ‘correct’ way.

By this same argument, calling a Pagan a heretic is plain wrong. A Pagan does not belong to the same group, nor does a Pagan accept the same teachings. However, these are technicalities. The question really, is should such words as heretic be used or be accepted in the Modern Era? Are not such words as heretic or even Infidel, barriers to Interfaith and are they not an indication that some elements within our society are closed to concepts of inclusivity and pluralism?

It was certainly an educational experience for me to discover that there are some Roman Catholics who are as fundamentalist and closed to alternative perspectives as the more usual so called ‘Christian Fundie’ that is portrayed in the media. Like all fundamentalists they are one assumes, a member of the insecure minority. However, this situation may also illustrate something that I have commented on before. That in Interfaith we are in a sense really preaching to the converted, as only the most open minded, spiritually secure and forward thinking are often prepared to engage in such dialogue.

The question remains however, how do we reach out and educate those individuals whose minds are so closed and whose distrust of other faiths is such, that they genuinely believe the use of the word heretic to be acceptable behaviour? That unfortunately is a question that remains unanswered and in a sense, reflects the complexity of the Interfaith Movement.

Perhaps it is time that the actual practice of engagement as opposed to the principle, was discussed more openly within the Pagan movement, recognising that the Pagan movement demands and expects equality.