That's a great arlicle. Myself, I think of paganism as the sense that the world is alive with various gods and daimons (some good some bad). In a way, Christianity separated spirit from the flesh and made God a distant figure. Divine order needs to come back down to earth in human form. Christ did this but left, leaving His followers waiting for His return.
There's always been this strain of iconoclasm in Christianity. The fear and hatred of images, and of the body. But the Greeks were able to make images that could aid in the manifestation of divine beings, alive but more perfect and, simultaneously, from another world.
Great poetry is called a fine madness. Culture is what's left over after you forgot what you tried to learn. It's instinct, but a learned one. As Europeans we need to return to a more instinctive view of the world and ourselves, and the old gods can help us.
"In a way, Christianity separated spirit from the flesh and made God a distant figure."
On the contrary, the Incarnation did precisely the opposite, which is why one of the biblical titles for Christ is Immanuel -- "God with us."
"There's always been this strain of iconoclasm in Christianity. The fear and hatred of images..."
Iconography appeared very early in Christian history, and although there was a "strain of iconoclasm" it was a minority view until well into the rise of Islam, and then was put to rest decisively in the 9th century. It didn't truly rear its head again in Christendom, East or West, until the Reformation. Neither of the two largest groups of Christians, the various Catholics and the various Orthodox, are iconoclastic. That view remains confined to Protestantism, and even there it's a minority.
Thanks for your comment. When I think of idealized forms it would be something along the lines of canons of proportion, the careful study of nature and Greek concepts of beauty. I don't think of the new Christian forms as seen in basilicas like Ravenna; although they exhibit a more abstract grandeur in their repetitive and hypnotic design. They are intentionally made otherworldly, e.g. flat, and so the patrons and their artists had no or little interest in vanishing points, horizon lines, atmospheric perspective, highlights, shadows, reflected light, etc.
You could say that the interest in relics was another manifestation of this movement away from finding divine order in earthly, natualistic idealized forms. If an object performed a miracle (or was authenticated by a religious authority) no matter how dull and plain, the relic would be considered sacred and evaluated more highly than a represenation of a beautiful, earthly form.
It wasn't until the Renaissance that Christians attempted to make idealized earthly forms sacred again and to be used as an aid in the manifestation of the divine.
But we don't really know that (about early iconography) given how many Christian icons were destroyed during the iconoclastic controversy. It's notable that one of the most famous icons of Christ, "The Christ of Sinai," is at the same time both artistically realistic and highly idealized (theologically), and is also one of the oldest icons that has survived. Later Byzantine iconography is "otherworldly" because its use is primarily liturgical and educational, not decorative. The well-known description of icons being "windows into heaven" speaks more to the ongoing connection of the divine and the human than its separation.
'Besides the contrast between the severe side portraying Christ as judge and the serene side portraying Christ as saviour, one notices the Gospel side of the icon is three-dimensional and painted (or “written” as we say in the East) with a certain level of realism while the facial features on the opposite side are flattened and two-dimensional. The general absence of naturalism within iconography, Quenot notes, “serves to emphasize the spiritualization of which is taking place.”[4] This includes a lack of natural three-dimensional depth perspective. “This refusal of depth is illustrated and demonstrated very well by figures which generally stand out against a plain gold-leaf background, with neither decoration nor background scenery. Viewed in such a way outside of either time or space, they command our attention by their spiritual presence,” Quenot states.[5]'
To the Greeks, the careful study of nature and beauty made manifest in their sacred images was not decoration either. If it wasn't an image of a god it would be an illustration of a myth which dramatized a story about a god or a hero which helped them understand their relationship with the divine.
No argument there. My point is that the spiritualization which is taking place is one that serves as a window rather than a wall (or a mirror). One of the key arguments of the iconodules against their opponents was that the latter got the Incarnation -- the "God with us" -- wrong.
The problem as I see it is that Christian believers do not identify as Europeans first and Christians second. They identify as Christians first and therefore cannot defend European culture. For example, they encourage the mass migration of non-Europeans and even aid them and the atheist elites in their efforts. There are many other problems concerning “human rights.”
Christianity is not meant to divide flesh and spirit at all. In fact we are meant to live in the Spirit in all our ways, our body is a temple for God and is being built into a temple for God, and is part of Christs body. One of the most recurring and pernicious heresies has always been Gnosticism. That the material world is a prison we are meant to escape from. This extends from pre-Christian thinkers all the way to the Cathars and seems to persist today in the denatured, deracinated modern pop evangelical church. Its a problem
In your review of Davidson's book, you note a serious blind spot, that what he's projecting as paganism with the Crowleyan "Do what thou wilt" is not really paganism as we've known it. You also underline Christianity as "anthropologically odd," which is certainly apt. And it made me think of René Girard in relation to all this.
I'm not sure if you know Girard's late book *I See Satan Fall Like Lightning*. His basic anthropological/religious demarcation between paganism and Christianity might do much to determine if we are or aren't "returning" to something like paganism. I'd say his definition of paganism is ... odd. But persuasive.
I haven't read Davidson's book, but I'm guessing Girard's way of arranging the pieces is neither quite his, nor quite yours. His arguments have overlap with both what I take to be Davidson's points and your points here, but approach from a very different angle. In this late book, his remarks on what is emerging in secular liberalism provide pointers to how a paganizing order might be re-instated. Can such an order exist without the enchanted landscape of ancient paganism you refer to? In Girard’s terms, Yes.
Some people now consider Girard monotone, but he may offer the best hermeneutic toward understanding this fraught borderlands we're in.
In the new collection of Girard's "essential" writings there is a very good essay on Nietzsche that raises some of these points. The book is out in the UK but will not be released in the U.S. until January. I'd also refer readers to the group of lectures on Nietzsche by Canadian philosopher George Grant under the title 'Time as History.' Grant, for one, decidedly does NOT leave the technological out of the picture.
Alright, this article did it, and I am now a paid subscriber to your Substack, N.S. Lyons. I share your apprehension that the west can revert to paganism; that’s simply not the way that history works. Whatever we end up with will likely “rhyme” with paganism in some profound ways, but it will be something else entirely. Let me share a dark vision that I have, as a member of the managerial class (though a decidedly heterodox and conservative one) in good standing. That the bureaucratic structures that shape and control our world (and by this, I don’t necessarily mean the “deep state” or even the government per se; so much of what occurs in the world is structured around the exigencies of the reinsurance market and other risk oriented parameters, which is highly regulated but technically not fully government controlled) will begin to see themselves as entities worthy of worship. I think we might be very close to such an eventuality, closer than we think. Still not a reason for despair, but a dark vision nonetheless. I look forward to continuing to read you as a paid subscriber.
Great essay on describing the historical relationships between paganism, Christianity and disenchanted materialism. A good reminder too, we’ve been here before so embrace the moment.
I look forward to reading your essay (I subscribe First Things so will read it there later today). In the mean time, I wonder if you have read
Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion)
by: Steven D. Smith
Smith’s book provides an interesting assessment of the ongoing competition between imminent paganism and transcendent religions (exemplified by Christianity) that seems quite relevant…
You mentioned meeting up at the NatCon in Brussels but noticed that in your picture for the event, you're wearing a mask. And N.S. Lyons I'm assuming is a nom de plume. So how open are you about your identity? Do you in fact ever get together with readers your substack? Just wondering. Also, I heard the other day that NatCon is going to be in DC this year-something I'm excited about as I live in the DC area myself. Do you plan to attend? Thanks so much for your work. Sincerely, Ward Davis
Thank you ever so much. I have been waiting for a while now for somebody to write this article. I should have known it would be you! I'm prepping to walk the Camino de Santiago in September. Maybe October, too; I'll be 75 by then so it might go slow. But I am consumed by anticipation. Lifting weights in the gym every day trying to get strong enough to carry a backpack with basic necessities for 485 miles. You should come too. Be sure to bring an ultralight keyboard.
Also. A book hypercritical of the whole tradition of western philosophy titled "Athens & Jerusalem" (1937), by a Jewish Russian named Lev Shestov, kinda blew a lot of my own existential anxiety out the window and really for the first time gave me a glimpse of what it could mean to be free --killed my desire to read non-fiction books, now if I'm gonna read a time-consuming book it better be fiction (or CS Lewis, or, if you write a book...); I am wondering if you've read it or heard of it.
Fascinating! "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." "Il est interdit d'interdire" -- it is forbidden to forbid" -- was the slogan of the French student rebels in May 1968. At least, according to the author of French Women Don't Get Fat.
This one persuaded me to unpause. That and the announcement that you were no longer incognito and my hope is that it will lead to more content.
You convinced me that soulless materialism is a more dangerous foe of Christianity than paganism but what about the elephant in the room-Islam. Whatever you say about Islam, they certainly don't suffer from an enthusiasm gap. Comparing the two religions leads me to think that Christianity's woes are self-inflicted. The Religious Left that has come to dominate what used to be called the Mainstream Church gives people no reason other than fellowship to participate and fellowship does not require belief.
I stumbled into a new Church with new Gods about a decade ago when I moved from NYC to Venice, CA, famous for its beach and boardwalk (and located at the very edge of the West, our last outpost, both geographically and chronologically).
This is what I faced when I spoke with almost everyone there, especially at the monthly meetings of the VNC, which is where various priests and acolytes of the New Faith congregate to make demands on their political leaders:
"A solipsistic focus on self-expression, self-empowerment, and pride; a radical emphasis of unabridged individual autonomy and liberation from all customs, taboos, and constraints, including all duties and relational ties; an extreme aversion to boundaries and limits on desire, and the self-creation not only of all aspects of personal identity, but of the body, nature, and reality itself; and ultimately an undiluted worship of the self and the will to power, hidden behind a mask of empathy, tolerance, and the language of the therapeutic...."
But it'd be foolish to call this nihilism, as it is actually a hard-edged belief system policed (like most belief systems) by a punitive morality and a righteous priesthood, with their beliefs being more or less: a passionate hatred of all cops or anyone who would come between a person and their desires, even if their desires include shooting up in front of a kindergarten; a passionate hatred of "Capitalism" and all its works, especially the tech bros who make all their favorite toys but selfishly don't break off a few billion for them; and a fawning worship of anyone with officially approved Victim status, especially racial and sexual minorities, who are transformed into saints or demigods that need to be protected at all costs, who are so weak and fragile they can't even handle contradiction, with the Yang of this Yin being more raging hatred against anyone not as "compassionate".
Whatever the rest of the West experiences is usually cooked up here in California, the home of the lost souls of the post-Christian West, where Idealism seems to be as warm, welcoming and prevalent as the sunshine. But this new faith does seem suspiciously familiar: worship of the weak and downtrodden, desire for a communal bond and a washing away of sin, belief in a righteous god who loves us all and will answer all your prayers if you just pray and purify your soul, etc etc...
I sense a revival of "Jesus Christ Superstar" coming soon to a theater near you.
I've not read Davidson's book, but is it possible he means something like, "If nothing is true then everything is permitted"? If that's the case he's echoing Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. The idea that "everything is permitted" doesn't mean that there won't be any rules, but rather that what rules there are will be based entirely on the will to power. As Marion Montgomery put it, left without any transcendent standard, we are left with conflicts of rival subjectivities, with the victorious one being the one that can exert the most power/influence at a given time. In this scenario it doesn't seem outlandish to envision a combination of paganism and nihilism.
Brilliant writing, as always. On the origin of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". This derives from occultism, specifically Chaos Magic, originating in 1980's Britain, building on the Thelemic "do what thou wilt". The idea being that if you can think it, you can make it happen, that beliefs are merely the framework for getting what one wants. Hope this helps the curious.
I know it’s not exactly the point, but this is such beautiful writing.
Thank you! That's probably the best complement a writer can hope for, even if their arguments fail.
it's always the point! expect no less
That's a great arlicle. Myself, I think of paganism as the sense that the world is alive with various gods and daimons (some good some bad). In a way, Christianity separated spirit from the flesh and made God a distant figure. Divine order needs to come back down to earth in human form. Christ did this but left, leaving His followers waiting for His return.
There's always been this strain of iconoclasm in Christianity. The fear and hatred of images, and of the body. But the Greeks were able to make images that could aid in the manifestation of divine beings, alive but more perfect and, simultaneously, from another world.
Great poetry is called a fine madness. Culture is what's left over after you forgot what you tried to learn. It's instinct, but a learned one. As Europeans we need to return to a more instinctive view of the world and ourselves, and the old gods can help us.
"In a way, Christianity separated spirit from the flesh and made God a distant figure."
On the contrary, the Incarnation did precisely the opposite, which is why one of the biblical titles for Christ is Immanuel -- "God with us."
"There's always been this strain of iconoclasm in Christianity. The fear and hatred of images..."
Iconography appeared very early in Christian history, and although there was a "strain of iconoclasm" it was a minority view until well into the rise of Islam, and then was put to rest decisively in the 9th century. It didn't truly rear its head again in Christendom, East or West, until the Reformation. Neither of the two largest groups of Christians, the various Catholics and the various Orthodox, are iconoclastic. That view remains confined to Protestantism, and even there it's a minority.
Thanks for your comment. When I think of idealized forms it would be something along the lines of canons of proportion, the careful study of nature and Greek concepts of beauty. I don't think of the new Christian forms as seen in basilicas like Ravenna; although they exhibit a more abstract grandeur in their repetitive and hypnotic design. They are intentionally made otherworldly, e.g. flat, and so the patrons and their artists had no or little interest in vanishing points, horizon lines, atmospheric perspective, highlights, shadows, reflected light, etc.
You could say that the interest in relics was another manifestation of this movement away from finding divine order in earthly, natualistic idealized forms. If an object performed a miracle (or was authenticated by a religious authority) no matter how dull and plain, the relic would be considered sacred and evaluated more highly than a represenation of a beautiful, earthly form.
It wasn't until the Renaissance that Christians attempted to make idealized earthly forms sacred again and to be used as an aid in the manifestation of the divine.
But we don't really know that (about early iconography) given how many Christian icons were destroyed during the iconoclastic controversy. It's notable that one of the most famous icons of Christ, "The Christ of Sinai," is at the same time both artistically realistic and highly idealized (theologically), and is also one of the oldest icons that has survived. Later Byzantine iconography is "otherworldly" because its use is primarily liturgical and educational, not decorative. The well-known description of icons being "windows into heaven" speaks more to the ongoing connection of the divine and the human than its separation.
'Besides the contrast between the severe side portraying Christ as judge and the serene side portraying Christ as saviour, one notices the Gospel side of the icon is three-dimensional and painted (or “written” as we say in the East) with a certain level of realism while the facial features on the opposite side are flattened and two-dimensional. The general absence of naturalism within iconography, Quenot notes, “serves to emphasize the spiritualization of which is taking place.”[4] This includes a lack of natural three-dimensional depth perspective. “This refusal of depth is illustrated and demonstrated very well by figures which generally stand out against a plain gold-leaf background, with neither decoration nor background scenery. Viewed in such a way outside of either time or space, they command our attention by their spiritual presence,” Quenot states.[5]'
https://catholicexchange.com/icon-christ-sinai-apologetic-incarnation/
To the Greeks, the careful study of nature and beauty made manifest in their sacred images was not decoration either. If it wasn't an image of a god it would be an illustration of a myth which dramatized a story about a god or a hero which helped them understand their relationship with the divine.
No argument there. My point is that the spiritualization which is taking place is one that serves as a window rather than a wall (or a mirror). One of the key arguments of the iconodules against their opponents was that the latter got the Incarnation -- the "God with us" -- wrong.
The problem as I see it is that Christian believers do not identify as Europeans first and Christians second. They identify as Christians first and therefore cannot defend European culture. For example, they encourage the mass migration of non-Europeans and even aid them and the atheist elites in their efforts. There are many other problems concerning “human rights.”
Christianity is not meant to divide flesh and spirit at all. In fact we are meant to live in the Spirit in all our ways, our body is a temple for God and is being built into a temple for God, and is part of Christs body. One of the most recurring and pernicious heresies has always been Gnosticism. That the material world is a prison we are meant to escape from. This extends from pre-Christian thinkers all the way to the Cathars and seems to persist today in the denatured, deracinated modern pop evangelical church. Its a problem
In your review of Davidson's book, you note a serious blind spot, that what he's projecting as paganism with the Crowleyan "Do what thou wilt" is not really paganism as we've known it. You also underline Christianity as "anthropologically odd," which is certainly apt. And it made me think of René Girard in relation to all this.
I'm not sure if you know Girard's late book *I See Satan Fall Like Lightning*. His basic anthropological/religious demarcation between paganism and Christianity might do much to determine if we are or aren't "returning" to something like paganism. I'd say his definition of paganism is ... odd. But persuasive.
I haven't read Davidson's book, but I'm guessing Girard's way of arranging the pieces is neither quite his, nor quite yours. His arguments have overlap with both what I take to be Davidson's points and your points here, but approach from a very different angle. In this late book, his remarks on what is emerging in secular liberalism provide pointers to how a paganizing order might be re-instated. Can such an order exist without the enchanted landscape of ancient paganism you refer to? In Girard’s terms, Yes.
Some people now consider Girard monotone, but he may offer the best hermeneutic toward understanding this fraught borderlands we're in.
BTW, keep up the great work.
In the new collection of Girard's "essential" writings there is a very good essay on Nietzsche that raises some of these points. The book is out in the UK but will not be released in the U.S. until January. I'd also refer readers to the group of lectures on Nietzsche by Canadian philosopher George Grant under the title 'Time as History.' Grant, for one, decidedly does NOT leave the technological out of the picture.
Thanks for this.
Alright, this article did it, and I am now a paid subscriber to your Substack, N.S. Lyons. I share your apprehension that the west can revert to paganism; that’s simply not the way that history works. Whatever we end up with will likely “rhyme” with paganism in some profound ways, but it will be something else entirely. Let me share a dark vision that I have, as a member of the managerial class (though a decidedly heterodox and conservative one) in good standing. That the bureaucratic structures that shape and control our world (and by this, I don’t necessarily mean the “deep state” or even the government per se; so much of what occurs in the world is structured around the exigencies of the reinsurance market and other risk oriented parameters, which is highly regulated but technically not fully government controlled) will begin to see themselves as entities worthy of worship. I think we might be very close to such an eventuality, closer than we think. Still not a reason for despair, but a dark vision nonetheless. I look forward to continuing to read you as a paid subscriber.
Great essay on describing the historical relationships between paganism, Christianity and disenchanted materialism. A good reminder too, we’ve been here before so embrace the moment.
We were born to be alive in this age!
I look forward to reading your essay (I subscribe First Things so will read it there later today). In the mean time, I wonder if you have read
Pagans and Christians in the City: Culture Wars from the Tiber to the Potomac (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion)
by: Steven D. Smith
Smith’s book provides an interesting assessment of the ongoing competition between imminent paganism and transcendent religions (exemplified by Christianity) that seems quite relevant…
Beautifully written. I started the article a little bit panicked and then you made me remember there is no need.
“Ours is a profane and mechanistic world…”
On a level, I suppose
Depends on who you ask
It’s pretty miraculous to me
Mr. Lyons,
You mentioned meeting up at the NatCon in Brussels but noticed that in your picture for the event, you're wearing a mask. And N.S. Lyons I'm assuming is a nom de plume. So how open are you about your identity? Do you in fact ever get together with readers your substack? Just wondering. Also, I heard the other day that NatCon is going to be in DC this year-something I'm excited about as I live in the DC area myself. Do you plan to attend? Thanks so much for your work. Sincerely, Ward Davis
I'll be on camera at NatCon, so my era of anonymity is sadly coming to an end.
I should be there in DC for NatCon, and am there on and off at other times.
I too live (some of the time) in DC and would love to have an opportunity to meet up.
Wonderful! I look forward to hopefully getting a chance to meet you in person.
Thank you ever so much. I have been waiting for a while now for somebody to write this article. I should have known it would be you! I'm prepping to walk the Camino de Santiago in September. Maybe October, too; I'll be 75 by then so it might go slow. But I am consumed by anticipation. Lifting weights in the gym every day trying to get strong enough to carry a backpack with basic necessities for 485 miles. You should come too. Be sure to bring an ultralight keyboard.
Also. A book hypercritical of the whole tradition of western philosophy titled "Athens & Jerusalem" (1937), by a Jewish Russian named Lev Shestov, kinda blew a lot of my own existential anxiety out the window and really for the first time gave me a glimpse of what it could mean to be free --killed my desire to read non-fiction books, now if I'm gonna read a time-consuming book it better be fiction (or CS Lewis, or, if you write a book...); I am wondering if you've read it or heard of it.
Fascinating! "Nothing is true, everything is permitted." "Il est interdit d'interdire" -- it is forbidden to forbid" -- was the slogan of the French student rebels in May 1968. At least, according to the author of French Women Don't Get Fat.
Similarly, "All will be tolerated except the intolerant!"
This one persuaded me to unpause. That and the announcement that you were no longer incognito and my hope is that it will lead to more content.
You convinced me that soulless materialism is a more dangerous foe of Christianity than paganism but what about the elephant in the room-Islam. Whatever you say about Islam, they certainly don't suffer from an enthusiasm gap. Comparing the two religions leads me to think that Christianity's woes are self-inflicted. The Religious Left that has come to dominate what used to be called the Mainstream Church gives people no reason other than fellowship to participate and fellowship does not require belief.
I stumbled into a new Church with new Gods about a decade ago when I moved from NYC to Venice, CA, famous for its beach and boardwalk (and located at the very edge of the West, our last outpost, both geographically and chronologically).
This is what I faced when I spoke with almost everyone there, especially at the monthly meetings of the VNC, which is where various priests and acolytes of the New Faith congregate to make demands on their political leaders:
"A solipsistic focus on self-expression, self-empowerment, and pride; a radical emphasis of unabridged individual autonomy and liberation from all customs, taboos, and constraints, including all duties and relational ties; an extreme aversion to boundaries and limits on desire, and the self-creation not only of all aspects of personal identity, but of the body, nature, and reality itself; and ultimately an undiluted worship of the self and the will to power, hidden behind a mask of empathy, tolerance, and the language of the therapeutic...."
But it'd be foolish to call this nihilism, as it is actually a hard-edged belief system policed (like most belief systems) by a punitive morality and a righteous priesthood, with their beliefs being more or less: a passionate hatred of all cops or anyone who would come between a person and their desires, even if their desires include shooting up in front of a kindergarten; a passionate hatred of "Capitalism" and all its works, especially the tech bros who make all their favorite toys but selfishly don't break off a few billion for them; and a fawning worship of anyone with officially approved Victim status, especially racial and sexual minorities, who are transformed into saints or demigods that need to be protected at all costs, who are so weak and fragile they can't even handle contradiction, with the Yang of this Yin being more raging hatred against anyone not as "compassionate".
Whatever the rest of the West experiences is usually cooked up here in California, the home of the lost souls of the post-Christian West, where Idealism seems to be as warm, welcoming and prevalent as the sunshine. But this new faith does seem suspiciously familiar: worship of the weak and downtrodden, desire for a communal bond and a washing away of sin, belief in a righteous god who loves us all and will answer all your prayers if you just pray and purify your soul, etc etc...
I sense a revival of "Jesus Christ Superstar" coming soon to a theater near you.
I've not read Davidson's book, but is it possible he means something like, "If nothing is true then everything is permitted"? If that's the case he's echoing Dostoevsky and Nietzsche. The idea that "everything is permitted" doesn't mean that there won't be any rules, but rather that what rules there are will be based entirely on the will to power. As Marion Montgomery put it, left without any transcendent standard, we are left with conflicts of rival subjectivities, with the victorious one being the one that can exert the most power/influence at a given time. In this scenario it doesn't seem outlandish to envision a combination of paganism and nihilism.
Brilliant writing, as always. On the origin of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". This derives from occultism, specifically Chaos Magic, originating in 1980's Britain, building on the Thelemic "do what thou wilt". The idea being that if you can think it, you can make it happen, that beliefs are merely the framework for getting what one wants. Hope this helps the curious.