On December 25 (2023) the Rabbi David Wolpe published the article “The Return of the Pagans” in The Atlantic. He defined Paganism as “the worship of natural forces ... [in] two forms: the deification of nature and the deification of force.” He identified these two with the political left and right, respectively, and blamed them for being the cause of several developments in society, such as Peter Singer’s utilitarian ethics to boost animal rights on the left and an ethics of success in support of exploitative capitalism on the right.
The Pagan reaction came from The Wild Hunt. The editor-in-chief, Manny Tejeda Moreno, responded by accusing Wolpe of a “lack of familiarity” with Paganism, which was “glaring in the article.” Moreno also questioned Wolpe’s negative characterisation of Paganism by pointing out failures of similar scale of Christianity and Judaism. Two scholars at the Harvard Divinity School, Dan McKanan and Giovanna Parmigiani, also reacted with an open letter, questioning Wolpe’s expertise and criticising his hurtful tone toward Pagans. On December 28 Holli Emore, the executive director of Cherry Hill Seminary, invited Wolpe to a personal conversation, which he declined. As cited by The Wild Hunt, Wolpe later excluded modern Paganism (in the sense of Wicca and Druidry) from his criticism: “I have been deluged with advocacies, requests for dialogue and so forth. The article did not and does not address the current pagan communities nor was it intended to.”
Wolpe’s reaction is both unfortunate and understandable. What else should he have done when faced with such personal attacks? And it is unfortunate because it is a missed opportunity for all Paganism. One might wonder why Manny Tejeda Moreno would rather question Wolpe’s expertise and react with whataboutism versus proving him wrong, or why Holli Emore would rather ask Wolpe to talk privately versus reacting by tackling Wolpe’s claims publicly? Is there no space for Pagan thought in Pagan media? Did Pagan groups not dare to ask mainstream outlets to publish a reaction? Other media outlets might have been interested after The Atlantic featured a rabbi of some reputation such as Wolpe.
Wolpe’s text was indeed an opportunity for Paganism for two reasons. (1) He claimed that there is a distinct Pagan culture among white people, and (2) he tackled Paganism with two different approaches for ethics. The first aspect of Wolpe’s claim is fascinating, because when it comes to financial support or legal recognition, (white) Paganism is often ridiculed as a quirk of eccentrics and not a widespread or genuine culture. Wolpe contradicts this view. The second aspect already undermines the aim of his text. He associates virtue ethics with the Pagans of antiquity when he first notes that humility was not considered a virtue back then, but then he criticises the utilitarianism of Peter Singer as a form of modern Paganism. This is puzzling because these approaches to ethics are very different. I can only speculate, but his separation of left- and right-wing Pagans might solve this puzzle. In his view the right-wing pagans might deify forces like the Platonists and are therefore evaluated with a version of virtue ethics, while the left-wing pagans deify (the beings in) nature and are therefore a Stoic-Epicurean oxymoron, best tackled by seeing humans as indistinguishable from animals. These Pagans are therefore best addressed by a criticism of Singer’s utilitarianism. The tension between Stoic religiosity for nature and the animal-loving Epicurean rejection of religion already shows that there is something off with Wolpe’s way of including ethics when talking about Religion. And indeed, the claim that setting nature as religiously ultimate prohibits the derivation of an ethics from this religion has been extensively studied by many, including, for example, Donald Crosby.[1] That nature is cruel and therefore does not imply morality is a triviality that affects all cosmological religions independent of how materialist or mystical they are. Yet, more importantly, it shows that ethics was never part of mere religiosity for any religion in the first place and this is a Pagan message that is desperately in need of being heard by everyone.
Paganism was lucky that Wolpe published his text. We could have gotten out two important messages here: (1) Paganism is real and widespread, and (2) Paganism – and since it is an example of religion, therefore religiosity itself – does not necessarily determine an ethics, contrary to what monotheists claim. Sadly, we missed this opportunity.
[1] D. Crosby: The Ultimacy of Nature: an essay on physidicy. American Journal of Theology & Philosophy, Vol. 14, No. 3 (1993) pp. 301-314
