Pagan (PAY-gun) - defn. 1. (noun) A person who is not a Christian, Moslem or Jew, 2. (latin) A country-dweller.

   Both of these paraphrased definitions come from Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary. While the first is accurate -to most people in English-speaking regions today- it does little to define what a Pagan actually is or what such a person believes. I only bring this up because this is a problem for any group which allows itself to be defined by what it is not. Rather than focusing on what it means to be a Pagan, the normal approach is to say that such a person is not Christian, Jewish or a member of any related faith.

   But what does that mean? The definition isn't of much use to anyone who seriously doesn't know what a Pagan is and it doesn't do much to describe what such a person really believes in, either.

   Now the second definition that I quoted above, while also accurate, is not much more help than the first. When "country dweller" was the definition for what "Pagan" meant, Europe was still under Roman rule and the bulk of it's citizens worshipped a wide variety of Gods and Goddesses from all over the Mediterranean world. In this case, it's not so much a problem of defining "Pagan" by what it is not as opposed to using a definition that is hundreds (if not thousands) of years out of date.

   On top of it all, while those of us who practice a Pagan faith know what we stand for and believe as individuals, the term "Pagan" still doesn't tell us much about others who exist under the same theological umbrella. Paganism, if nothing else, is so broad when defined as a non-Judeo-Christian religion that it even creates confusion amongst the Pagans! But is it inevitable that we define ourselves by what we are not?

   Perhaps it is...

   I must confess to beginning most definitions of Paganism with "it's any non-Judeo-Christian religion".

   The reason I start out this way is due to the vast amount of diversity that exists in contemporary Paganism. If I define it any more concretely, I end up leaving someone out who has very legitimate claims to belonging to this collection of faiths. Consider this...

   Hindus are considered Pagans. So are Native American Shaman. So are practitioners of Voodun and Santeria. From a philosophical position, there are huge amounts of differences and very few similarities between even these examples. However, each one of these has numerous adherents who have laid legitimate claim to the term "Pagan" for decades or centuries. Even the time-honored definition of substituting the description "Earth-centered religion" for "Pagan" doesn't really apply across all traditions.

   For a while, I'd even heard "Pagan" defined as "any non-Judeo-Christian European or Mediterranean religion." Of course those practicing traditions rooted in Middle Eastern locales quite correctly point out that most of the social groups from which they draw their practices are not considered "European" or "Mediterranean". So much for that definition. Again, we're back to square one ... defining "Pagan" by what it is not.

   But is that such a bad thing? Perhaps defining one's beliefs by what they are not should be considered on a case-by-case basis.

   For example, beginning a conversation with "Well, first of all, Wicca is not Satan-worship" is -at times- very distracting to the discussion. Unless a Wiccan is asked directly "Do you worship Satan?" it is almost counter-productive to start a conversation with such words. The same applies to the followers of Santeria ... another religion that has been much-maligned in popular culture. What do either of these two examples have to gain by starting their commentaries with what they are not? It's basically allowing the religion's detractors to frame the debate and cast aspersions without having to come out and make claims themselves. Instead, when someone asks what Santeria or Wicca is, actually having a clear, concise answer is to the benefit of the Pagan in question. If asked "Does this involve Satan?" or some other question of similar vein, answer truthfully and clearly. But to start by bringing up such a potentially politically-charged topic without the querant asking for it, is leading the conversation into an area that has been well-mined with the traps and slanders of those who have painted such a negative picture in the past.

   Contrary to this approach, though, when I am asked "What is Paganism?", I hesitate to advocate defining it directly. It's really quite difficult and can often lead to confusion.

   For example, while there are elements of commonality between the various Pagan traditions that can allow the formation of a general picture of who and what we are, they aren't as inclusive as they need to be. These common elements tend to include things like polytheism, a root in ancient beliefs, the seeking of "balance" (a philosophically meaningless buzz-word, to be sure ... so subjective and watered down in today's media-driven pop-philosophy market that it's lost any true definition for use in debate or definition) and even a belief in magickal or spiritual elements in the world around us.

   But -again- these commonalities don't apply to every Pagan.

   I guess I'm of the opinion that if a definition is lacking in some way, then it is not a definition. Now, beyond even these poorly-definable aspects of philosophical belief, how do you define the even vaster differences of how Pagans live their lives? Again, there are common points that seem to pop up now and then between many Pagan adherents, but are lacking when applied across the board.

   Pagans tend to use natural items in clothing and foodstuffs. Many of them believe in maintaining a perceived balance between the various elements in their lives - both mundane and spiritual. Pagans tend to practice theological relativity -that just because they believe in a specific path (even one that may seem to be mutually exclusive to all others)- this does not imply that other paths are invalid for their practitioners. Pagans tend to work hard at improving the environment. Still, these are only generalities that are sporadic at best and frequently inaccurate.

   Paganism has been defined as to include Wiccans, Asatru, Druids, Earth-based Religions, Shamanism, Santeria, Hinduism, Shinto and many, many other faiths. I don't think it's really possible -in such a broad spectrum of people both desiring and deserving of the title "Pagan"- to define the term by trying to enforce a definition from just one aspect or tradition. Indeed, it seems easier to define "Pagan" by what it is not.

   Unlike the earlier example of defining Wicca or Santeria as not being Devil-worship, the definition of "Pagan" as "Not-X" isn't drawing attention to a negative concept. Instead, it is pointing to a vast ocean of cultural and philosophical diversity. But how about this? If someone asks what a Pagan is, go ahead and define it ... for yourself. Start with saying that Pagans are non-Judeo-Christians and then explain your own experiences. It may take longer and not be an easy sound-bite, but (if you'll pardon the pun) that's a cross we'll have to bear.

   This is crucial because of the one element that really does seem to be common to members of contemporary Paganism... Pagans tend to be very individualistic and treat their spiritual development, discoveries and definitions on a personal level. As such, a Pagan may be loosely defined by what he or she is not; but the meat and meaning of that definition is found in the details of that individual's path.

   And that's what it means to be a Pagan.

   (In my humble opinion, of course.)

   Blessed Be,
   Sylvan SilverNight
   Solitary Celtic Wiccan
   Minneapolis, Minnesota

   September 20th, 1999