The Lord, the Lady and Traditions

[Anonymous]

Until the last little bit, I've been drawn to Wicca. However I find myself departing from there, and I'm more interested in general Paganism. With the little bit of research I've done, here are my questions:

1. Is the idea of a central Lord and Lady basically Wiccan lore, or has it crossed over to Paganism in general? Like in Strega, the sort of central figures are Diana and Lucifer, Who I personally see as faucets of the Lord and Lady. So, do most reconstructionalists worship the central figures in their chosen mythology as well as the Lord and the Lady, or simply consider the central figures as 'it'? (Sorry, I didn't quite know how to pose the question)

2. Are most forms of Paganism reconstructionalistic? eg Strega, Helenismos, Kemetic, ect.

Any advice or information would be greatly accepted. And I realize we Pagans are a diverse bunch, so I won't bother myself by expecting the same answer from everyone

[branwen]

I suppose everyone has their own answer to your first question.  Although I rarely use the terms Lord and Lady, I think of them as the male and female aspects of deity.  Their origin is probably Celtic, but has been adopted by other traditions.  I expect that most original pagan religions had both gods and goddesses, or at least one of each.  It has only been in the modern world religions that the female figure has been reduced to a minor deity, if present at all.  

Perhaps your confusion is in the use of the words "Lord" and "Lady."  One could just as easily substitute God and Goddess or even specific names from a pantheon.  Wiccans are generally duotheistic, acknowledging both a male and a female deity.  It becomes more complicated in polytheistic systems where multiple deities, usually from the same culture, are recognized, though I know of no pantheon that does not include both males and females.

The second question is easier.  All modern pagan religions are reconstructions.  Without written records other than those written by Christian clerics and only a little oral tradition in most cases, pagan religions have been revived largely from mythology and a general sense of what we think our ancestors believed.

Even where there is some documentary evidence, as in the Kemetic religions, alterations or modernizations have been made.  For example, there are modern temples of Bast which acknowledge the relationship between cats and the Egyptian goddess as well as her role as a protectress and other aspects of the original goddess.  However, in ancient Egypt, thousands of cats were killed and mumified as offerings to Bast.  In the contemporary temples, there are no animal sacrifices, especially not cats, yet some of the original features of the religion have been reconstructed.

We live in different times than our ancestors, and for all our talk of reviving the "old ways" few of us would actually want to live as our ancestors did.  What neo-paganism does is to try to recreate the best of what we see in our pasts.

[Anonymous]

Alright. I think I have a bit more clarity now. Thank you for understand my question and replying. Now you have me thinking: are Santerians today neo Santerians or not? :: flies off on her Nimbus Explorer version 5.0::

[branwen]

Santeria has a different history than modern witchcraft.  It began as the religion of the Yoruba people in Nigeria and was transplanted to the Carribean as slaves were taken there.  The Yoruban religion then became combined with Catholocism, resulting in Santeria.  One of the ways in which this happened was that the Orishas, the emissaries of the god Oludumare, were associated with saints, thus the name, Santeria.  So, Santeria is not so much a revival of an older religion but its continuation in a new form.

Voudou has a similar history in that it was brought by slaves and combined with Christianity.

[Lark]

You'll find that not all Wiccans are strictly duotheistic.  Many of us, myself included, are hard polytheists. We believe that there are many, many Gods and Goddesses and that each of them is an individual in its own right.

That being said, we may have specific aspects/dieties that we work with on a regular basis and with whom we have special relationships.  But we acknowledge the validity of different dieties and pantheons.  The term for this is 'henotheism'.

We sometimes use the generic "Lord" and "Lady" when working in public rituals where individuals in the circle have a  variety of different patrons they honor.  Keeping it generic allows everyone to put their own face to the Diety invited into the circle

Blessings,

-Lark-

[branwen]

You'll find that not all Wiccans are strictly duotheistic

You know, I've always found a much more polytheistic view among Wiccans I've met, but the books, etc. all say that it's duotheistic.  Some sources say that other gods and goddesses are recognized as aspects of "the" god and goddess and that the system is duotheistic in that sense.

However, it is interesting to hear yet another Wiccan claim to be a "hard polytheist."  I think some of the so-called authorities need to get out and talk to people and find out what they really believe.

We sometimes use the generic "Lord" and "Lady" when working in public rituals where individuals in the circle have a variety of different patrons they honor.

That makes perfect sense.

[Fillionous]

Although I feel called to the Gods and Goddess's of the British Isles, I have not yet found one that specifically calls to me. I am also wary of fixing Dieties in name and expectations, So I use the term Lord and Lady as polite terms of address to the God and Goddess, unamed but not unknown.
Yes I definitly belive there is God and Goddess... maybe even more than one, certianally aspects of, but in balance, male and female. Duality.

But my path is not one found in any book...

Be bright, be bold
Fillionous

[Brock]

You know, I've always found a much more polytheistic view among Wiccans I've met, but the books, etc. all say that it's duotheistic.

It is my understanding that in its original form, Wicca was a strictly duotheistic religion.  Strict Traditionalist Wiccans, such as  Gardnerians and Alexandrians, worship a specific God and a specific Goddess, whose Names are oathbound secrets, not to be shared with non-initiates.  In conversation with non-initiates, it is customary to refer to these two as "the Lord" and "the Lady."  And please note that in this context, "non-initiate" means anyone not verifiably initiated in a strict traditionalist group.  Which includes me.

Modern Wiccan practice, particularly in the US, has widened the scope of worship to include other deities, and even whole pantheons.  In my opinion, one of the key features of Wicca is its incorporation of the dynamic balance/tension of the male/female polarity in its theology, rather than a strict duotheism.  

My personal experiences have inclined me to believe that each God and Goddess is a separate and distinct individual, which is the so-called "hard polytheist" view.  I've had too many different gods "riding in the saddle of my soul" over the years to be willing to believe that they are simply aspects of some greater Whole.  If Lugh of the Long Arm and Odin are both different aspects of the same Presence, the nature of that Presence must be so totally beyond human comprehension that discussion of the subject must be meaningless.

However, it is interesting to hear yet another Wiccan claim to be a "hard polytheist." I think some of the so-called authorities need to get out and talk to people and find out what they really believe.

It's actually not too surprising that you are seeing this.  It's only in the last few years that we've had any really serious attempts made to start addressing the various neo-Pagan religions using the conventional vocabulary and techniques of theology.  Heck, the term "hard polythesim" cannot be more than a couple of years old at this point.  It always takes a while for the textbooks to catch up with the leading edge of thought in any field.  Why should Paganism be any different?

[branwen]

Thanks for your comments, Brock.  It is helpful to take a longer historical view of the subject.

I've had too many different gods "riding in the saddle of my soul" over the years to be willing to believe that they are simply aspects of some greater Whole.

I definitely agree with you there.  In fact, I think that over the years I've chosen (acknowledged, worked with, prayed to?) deities that have opposite characteristics exactly because they are opposite.  A gentle goddess known for caring for small children can't be the same as the fierce goddess with sword in hand leading a battle.  Well, I guess they could, but in my mind at least, they are different beings.  Being the weak human that I am, I need deities with many different characteristics to guide my path.  One or two just won't get the job done.