Sharing a thesis tidbit as I'm overwhelmed by the world and waiting for pizza to arrive (thanks for the coupon @JuliaVyse):

a mini-thread on how the idea of being “active” within Satanic religions is discussed by scholars and how I apply it in the Church of Satan.

First, we have an issue with the definition of "active" in new and emergent marginal religions. Scholars have (mostly) dismissed the idea of temple/church/mosque attendance, regular prayers, and structured rituals as the sole measure of how one is "active" in their religion.

That's because many new religions* deliberately eschew the perceived characteristics of institutional religions (as loosely understood here in "the West).

*(Popularly called "cults" though that term has such a strong negative bias we don't use it--except to sell books, mostly.)

Within esoteric, magical, and new age religiosity, there is a broad range of what could be considered religious "practice," complicated by their self-understanding that there is no division between theory and praxis, viewing such dichotomies as hallmarks of religions they reject.

We categorize these religions as "left hand path," at least, that's one name, among others, whose borders crack, shift, & merge with others on a regular basis. The topography of new religions has a high turnover of groups, persons, and ideas, but the cultic milieu remains stable.

The subcategory of the "satanic milieu" (shoutout Jesper Petersen), absorbs the esoteric discourses rejecting a mind-body fracture and instead viewing human existence as a psycho-physical totality (shoutout Kennet Granholm).

This holistic view is important, because as they reject a fractured binary world--a view emphasized by monotheistic religions--they then complicate how the academy of religion has typically defined "practice" which then informs what we would consider "active."

Put another way, scholars are complicit in reinforcing mind-body, theory/practice divide by solely defining someone as "active" in their religion if what they do is close to what Christians do (it's a problem we challenge in various approaches and methods).

So, given the above, how do you define being "active" in the Church of Satan when they:

don't have meetings, buildings, or local grottos;*
don't require rituals, solo nor in groups;
don't require contact with other members?

*Participation in now-disbanded grottos was voluntary.

On its surface, the definition the CoS offers simply states that if you read The Satanic Bible and consider yourself a Satanist, then that's good enough for them.

But I have a different agenda of scholarly inquiry; how do I qualify what they DO?

Do I count participation in online forums? (Which is optional.) How much they ritualize? (Also optional.)
Whether or not they attend barbecues with other CoS members? (I've been to one and performed a death metal karaoke version of Madonna's "Like a Virgin." Also optional.)

And if I limited my scope to those activities, it would ignore many CoS Members that never or rarely: go online, perform rituals, or have any contact whatsoever with other CoS Members, including the High Priest and Priestess.

It is not uncommon for members to "disappear" for years at a time, especially in the current context of virtual activity; they simply cease to have a (recognizable) online presence. They could be busy with life, pursuing other interests, or has silently resigned.

Sometimes they re-emerge online, sometimes not.

This echoes other modern contemporary religions, where "participation," however conceived, is deemed voluntary, ephemeral, and at one's own discretion. No one really keeps tabs in loosely formed groups around popular ideas.

So where have I landed? First, my study is qualitative, not quantitative, but, so far, CoS Members more of less adhere to the Church of Satan's ideological (fuzzy) borders, but what they deem as applying Satanism in their own lives varies greatly.

That is, their own perceptions of being religiously "active" (as gleaned from content created by CoS members and my own admittedly limited questionnaire) indicates that the intentional pursuit of their chosen goals and passions is a prime Satanic ideal.

These goals and passions come in many forms: a particular aesthetic, volunteering, raising their children, pursuits of decadent carnal pleasures, education, professional success, learning a skill, hobbies, political engagement, etc.

That is, there is no uniform way to define being "active" in the CoS.

In this way, they mirror Paul Heelas's definition of self-religions, where insight and improvement of the perceived "true" self is paramount. Here, organized around a (loose-ish) "Satanic" identity.

Ok. Pizza’s here. Class dismissed.

Stay tuned for my next academic existential crisis publicly unfolding on twitter, which I treat by narrowing in on something I *can* control.

Fin