[Note: This piece was submitted to a publication, but for various reasons I withdrew it today, and am instead publishing it here. Polytheists don’t have to read this and already know it, and thus it may not be remotely interesting nor useful for them. Others–especially those who have been critical of polytheism, and have argued that it is a matter of theology and therefore of belief and thus isn’t relevant to their experiential- or praxis-based religions, might be interested in reading this, but since many of those people who are hostile to polytheism don’t read my blog anyway aren’t likely to see this. I don’t really care, I’m posting it here anyway. In terms of theology, this is an example of what would be called “apologetics,” which tends not to be a popular theological genre these days, but oh well…! Sarenth discussed something similar recently with the “orthodoxy vs. orthopraxy” debate–which is the same discussion using different words–though what I think that particular form of the debate often misses is the fact that the reality is and always has been polypraxy and likewise polydoxy, but with one among many of those polydoxies and polypraxies found in particular groups, traditions, or individuals. Anyway, have a look at his post all the same!]
Polytheism: A Theology of Experience and Practice
First, we call upon the Spirits and Powers of the Sacred Lands and Sacred Waters, the many places from which you all have come. Add your soil, rocks, leaves, and other matter to this bowl, and your waters to this other bowl, and say the names of the places from which they have come, and the water sources where they were collected.[1]
*****
It has often been said that the religions falling under the Pagan rubric are religions of practice or religions of experience, unlike the dominant hegemonic creedal monotheisms, which are religions of belief. As much as this is a true and accurate picture, one of the assumed corollaries to this factual distinction is that therefore theological issues—which, it is often suggested, are inherently matters of belief—should not be topics of contention, subjects for argument, nor causes for division amongst Pagans. The often dismissed and derided hullabaloo over the Polytheist movement’s more visible and vocal emergence during the last several years, therefore, has been sidelined as unimportant by many leaders and elders in the Pagan religions as simply a theological irrelevance and a distractingly mere matter of belief. Unfortunately, this dismissal is based on a flawed understanding of what theology is (often concurrent with the incorrect notion that Christians “invented” theology when in fact the term itself was invented by Plato, a Greek polytheistic philosopher), what theology should be, and what theology can do. As a result, a mischaracterization of what people in the Polytheist movement are experiencing and practicing, and how their experiences and practices imply, presuppose, and are motivated by the very real and important theological differences that are part and parcel of a polytheistic theological outlook, continues to occur where the wider Pagan religions and movements are concerned when the latter attempt to engage with groups and individuals within the Polytheist movement.
In the present discussion, I would like to describe how the theological perspectives of polytheism are not simply matters of belief, but instead are the cornerstones of an experiential, praxis-based spiritual endeavor. Polytheism isn’t something that polytheists merely believe, it is something that is lived, perceived, and held in high and holy awe rooted in the religious regard polytheists foster as a result of acknowledging the existence of many Deities.[2]
*****
Now we will honor the Ancestors: first, the Ancestors In and Of the Land…next, the Female Ancestors, Whom everyone in this room has…next, the Male Ancestors, Whom everyone in this room has…next, the Gender-Variant Ancestors, Whom everyone in this room has…next, the Warrior Ancestors, Whom everyone in this room has…next, the Spirit-Worker Ancestors, Whom everyone in this room has…and finally, the Dead Who are Not-Yet Ancestors…
*****
Despite some attempts at discussing the rational justifications for holding a polytheist viewpoint,[3] I personally know of no polytheists who arrived at their theological position and the religious identities that often attach to it simply through a process of rational explanation or weighing the merits of different viewpoints by varying standards of reason. Every polytheist that I know who has written, spoken about, or taught from a polytheist perspective has arrived at that theological understanding as a result of the direct experience of a variety of individual and distinct volitional non-corporeal beings of exceptional wisdom, power, and majestically awesome presence—in other words, Deities and other types of divine being (e.g. Ancestors, Land Spirits, Heroes and Heroines, etc.). Almost without exception, these individuals did not grow up in households that practiced polytheistic religions, nor were they raised in cultures that held polytheistic practices or values in anything but the lowest (if any) regard. No matter what the background or childhood interests and experiences of these polytheists might have been, they were never given the option of “believing in” a diversity of divine beings and powers as a cognitive framework. If anything, they were told that such beings were figments of the ignorant and superstitious imaginations of primitive and barbaric peoples who lacked the “light of knowledge” of monotheism and/or science. Understanding what has occurred in religious experiences of distinct Deities has the hurdle in such situations of first distinguishing itself from a psychological breakdown, and then of finding a religious context in which it can be usefully and productively interpreted and integrated. After failing in this regard with the religions (if any) that many polytheists were raised within, alternatives are generally explored, and oftentimes one of the religions under the Pagan framework is a safe destination at which to arrive for a time.
Yet, if it were that simple, many more polytheists might feel at home in those religions under the Pagan umbrella. In fact, their authentic experiences are often forced into a compromise within those religions along one of the following lines: either it is only a partial, incomplete, and inferior experience in comparison to the “oneness” of “divine unity” that accompanies a monistic theological understanding; or, the individual characteristics, personalities, and particular wills and aims of the Deities experienced are subordinated to an overarching gender-dualist “Goddess” and “God” who are the “ultimate” manifestations of an implied universal divine order. While many Pagans may think that monism, duotheism, polytheism, and even atheism can all live perfectly fine under their particular practices, since the various Pagan religions are religions of practice first and foremost, the fact is that a practice based on a theological outlook that is monistic will look, sound, feel, and result in different experiences than those which are duotheistic, polytheistic, or atheistic, etc. Practice and theology cannot (and should not!) be separated, nor treated as if they are independent and hermetically-sealed categories that do not intersect, overlap, and influence each other on every level.
*****
Now, I invite each of you to come forward and bring images or symbols of your Deities with you to place upon our communal shrine. Say Their names aloud and hail Them, and once They are all in place, we shall all hail and praise Them together!
*****
If a monistic or duotheistic theology is in operation, the specific names of Deities invoked in rituals may not be important, since they would all either be facets and forms of “The One” or “The Goddess/The God” respectively. But, what if a person had an experience with Mercury, and wants to have another one with that specific God? Calling on “The One” will not foster such an experience, and praising an unqualified and ill-defined (male) “God,” or even a non-culturally specific archetype like “Trickster,” will likewise not cultivate a further devotional relationship with Mercury. If the individual divine interests of a given person are sidelined in favor of group unity and become entirely shunted off to the exclusive realm of their own private devotions, and public rituals and celebrations instead focus on practices deriving from duotheistic or monistic theological bases, then the utility of attending such public rituals, associating with such groups, or supporting such movements will not be as appealing for such an individual as either simply focusing on their own practices as a solitary devotee, or finding a group that does support their interests and bolsters their desired divine relationships. Hence, the Polytheist movement has attempted to make space for that type of pursuit, whereas a variety of individuals within the Pagan religions have either outright refused to do so, have reluctantly agreed to be inclusive in this regard, or in other ways have made such “theological issues” a matter of little to no consequence while still enforcing an orthopraxy based in theologies that are not congruent to the individual polytheist’s experiences, while yet often claiming to be inclusive and promoting diversity despite knowingly or unknowingly suppressing one expression of it.
This is not to say that monistic, duotheistic, or atheistic (or any other!) theological outlooks are wrong, bad, or negative in any inherent sense. For those who wish to pursue them, and whose divine experiences fit those categories, they are entirely appropriate and indeed productive, and no one should wish to deprive anyone of those options. However, if one’s experiences are inherently different than these, and thus one’s practices in pursuit of further such experiences will likewise need to be different, then being forced into practical frameworks that are not supportive of those differences, all in the name of “being practice-based” and “not getting caught up in theological games,” will provide no solace, will not lead to spiritual fulfillment nor peace nor personal development, and will certainly not accomplish the goal which many individual polytheists desire: namely, to express devotion for one or more individual and distinct Deities or other varieties of divine being, and to cultivate relationships with them. Likewise, no matter how much some people in various Pagan religions might say that they are polytheists in practice, but that monism or duotheism or atheism is a part of their polytheism, then what they are saying is not “wrong” or “bad,” but it is reflective of a different set of experiences, and thus a different form of practice—even if apparently polytheistic—will be appropriate to that outlook, and will not be compatible with a practice that is based in polytheism in the strictest and most unmodified sense.[4]
*****
This is an historic gathering and an historic occasion, in so many respects: one of the first Polytheist conferences, where polytheists of many different traditions and practices with many different Deities have come together for the first time, because it is important to support and acknowledge each other and one another’s Deities in our modern world, and to call upon them for help and aid in a world beset with difficulties. I’m sure we’ve all heard before that Deities from different pantheons or different cultures should not be invoked in the same ritual nor honored on the same shrines or altars; but, fuck that! [Laughter; Applause] We have only been able to come together like this because our Deities have been able to do so, and if they can, then we can, and we all must be in this work together.
*****
Experience and practice are dynamic dance partners in a feedback loop, with particularly powerful experiences suggesting (and often plainly indicating) best practices, and devoted practices leading to further and deeper experiences. Both experience and practice can be characterized in particular ways theologically, and such characterizations would constitute statements of “belief” in almost all cases. As a result, polytheism is a type of belief, but it is not—as in the hegemonic creedal monotheisms—a belief that is adopted or enforced without any evidence or the benefit of experience, it is a belief which can only arise from authentic experience. Shifting the emphasis in a given religion away from belief to practice and experience—which is the position of almost every indigenous religion throughout history, as well as most of the non-monotheist religions currently in existence, and likewise the ancient religions of Europe, the Near East, Africa, and further afield—does not eliminate belief entirely so much as relocate it and subordinate it to the priority of experience and practice. But, like an algebraic equation, the results cannot be balanced unless the variables of experience and the coefficients of practice equal the quanta which are beliefs expressed in theological terms like polytheism, monism, duotheism, and so forth. The “x = 1” of monism will never suit the “12y = 2” of duotheism, and neither of those will ever be appropriate to the “365z = ab10 + 37” (or whatever numbers best suit!) for different forms of polytheism.
The distaste for undisciplined eclecticism, and the derision of the (oft-misunderstood) concept of syncretism, frequently occurs amongst both mainstream Pagans and with many polytheists, even more vocally in the latter case on many occasions. However, this notion seemed to get a major thumb in the eye during the Opening and Closing Rituals at Many Gods West in Olympia in late July and early August of the summer of 2015. Dozens of Deities from at least fifteen different cultures and traditions were all enshrined, honored, prayed and offered to on the same consecrated ritual space, in addition to Land and Water Spirits, totem animals, Heroes and Heroines, Saints, and seven different classes of Ancestors and Dead. While the objection to “fluffy” eclecticism and sloppy syncretism in polytheist circles still does tend to rule the day—something often attributed to more mainstream Pagans by polytheists—why, and more importantly, how, did it manage to all work out at Many Gods West?
The difference was not that the Deities and other divine beings were simply mashed together willy-nilly for this occasion, as if simply selected at random from a list in a 101-type book or a Wikipedia page on a particular culture’s pantheon; rather, they were brought forward and enshrined by their individual devotees whose practices have focused upon them for years or even decades. The communal shrine was a manifestation of already established individual devotions, recognized collectively. But, more importantly, it was understood by every person in the room that these Deities—not unlike the many individual humans who were in attendance at the conference—were not facets of one unity that are interchangeable with one another, and cannot be reduced to a singular Goddess or God (or Deity of any other gender!), and are far more than mere symbols or archetypes that exist solely within the strata of human consciousness. Instead, They are individual beings with agency, volition, and particular characteristics, Who can come into association with one another (including in syncretized forms) and can relate to one another, but do not simply meld into one another and are not mere masks of an undifferentiated “Divine.” There was more than one image of Loki, the Morrígan, Odin, Antinous, Kali, Hermes, Dionysos, and a variety of other Deities from different traditions in place on the shrine, and each of those individual images were different sides and aspects of these various Deities, reflected through the particular relationships that each Deity has with the individual devotees who brought them forward.
Just as there may be one photo album for a year of a person’s life, and their photos with their work colleagues as opposed to the ones with their spouse and children, or their bowling league, or their Saturday afternoon brunch buddies, will feature them in different outfits with different poses and moods, so too do sacred images of Deities and the relationships facilitated through them likewise have a distinctiveness that cannot be reduced to a singularity, even if it is the same Deity involved on several different occasions with a multiplicity of different individuals. Not unlike individuals—in the words of Walt Whitman—the Deities contain multitudes. A commitment to recognizing and maintaining this awareness of difference was what distinguished this opening ritual from many other opening rituals at more general Pagan events. It was longer, certainly, because of it, but it was no less sacred, and in fact was more beautiful, varied, and endlessly exciting because of this diversity. Diversity was never compromised for an enforced unity; instead, diversity was simply allowed to exist. The success of the conference was because of the people involved and the Deities they brought with them.
Polytheism as a theological category and distinction of belief arises from experience, and results in practice, and the character of these experiences and the results of these practices are utterly dependent upon the particularities of polytheism itself. Religious regard for a multiplicity of Deities and other types of divine being necessitates particular approaches to language usage, to ritual practices, to attitudes and ideas surrounding spiritual subjects, and to a great variety of other factors, all of which shape the experiences which result and the interpretations of those experiences that follow from those results. Those interpretations necessitate further refinements of practice to facilitate better and more useful and enriching experiences. Experience, practice, and belief—with the latter phrased as particular theological distinctions like “polytheism”—are connected and interrelated in a perpetual cycle, and a virtuous (rather than vicious!) circle that feeds back positively on itself and upon those who enter into it. One does not enter the circle and engage in the cycle without first having an experience that introduces it as the option that is the best and most appropriate for the individual concerned. Other theological positions have circles appropriate to them, which will positively feed back for those involved with them as well. Some may shift circles based on changing experience, and some will abandon these circles altogether for a diversity of reasons appropriate to individual experience and critical reflection upon those experiences.
But, the circles and the cycles are not interchangeable themselves, and the components of one cannot be replaced by the components of the others. Thus, to deny the validity of polytheism and to dismiss its concerns as mere matters of theology and belief that are subordinate to practice and experience is to deny the importance and indeed primacy of experience and practice themselves for those who find themselves with the peculiar pleasure of wishing to further encounter a diversity of individual Deities and divine beings as individually as they were first encountered.
The cycle starts and ends with experience, though, which is a similarity that practitioners in the Polytheist movement and likewise within the various Pagan religions can agree upon. To suggest that because a theological distinction has been used to characterize these experiences, though, thus means that polytheism is merely a matter of belief and is thus irrelevant to the praxis-based nature of Pagan religions, while a very common assertion imposed by others in the lives of many within the Polytheist movement, not only impedes the possibility of useful practice for those who have had such experiences, but is all the more a valid argument for why the Polytheist and Pagan religions may not be as compatible as some have insisted. The necessity of separate and distinct movements, spaces, and conversations for Polytheists as well as Pagans becomes all the more apparent, not only to provide safe spaces for individual polytheists and the collective Polytheist movement to caucus, but also to maintain mutual respect based in recognition of distinctiveness, which will then allow more mutually beneficial collaborations to occur between Polytheists and Pagans on issues and activities of common concern to both. Experiences will still differ, and the practices appropriate to them will likewise diverge, but the increase in diversity should not be seen—and, indeed, never has been—a threat to the larger Pagan umbrella…or, at least, it need not be viewed as such if understood with diligence and compassionate regard.
Notes
1. This, and the other italicized sections to follow, are paraphrased from the spoken rubrics that I used at the Opening Ritual of the first Many Gods West conference, held in Olympia, WA, U.S.A., at the Governor Hotel on July 31st-August 2nd, 2015. The ritual was held at 1:30 PM, involved about 90 people, and lasted around 90 minutes. For further details on it, see my blog post about it.
2. In the foregoing discussion, I am borrowing and paraphrasing words and ideas from Theanos Thrax, also known as the Anomalous Thracian, who has repeatedly emphasized in writing, discussions and conversations, and at formal presentations on diverse occasions, that polytheism is not merely the acknowledgement of many Deities, but instead is holding many Deities in religious regard. By contrast, henotheism may acknowledge many Deities, but does not hold all of them in religious regard; and even monotheism—at least in the dominant hegemonic forms of it—may acknowledge a multiplicity of divine beings, but may only consider one of them a Deity-as-such while interpreting all others as either lesser powers (e.g. Saints, angels, etc.) or as demons, with Deities from indigenous European and other cultures generally falling into the category of “demons” in most cases.
3. For more “practitioner”-based perspectives, see John Michael Greer, A World Full of Gods: An Inquiry into Polytheism (Tucson, AZ: ADF Publishing, 2005); Steven Dillon, The Case for Polytheism (Airesford: Iff Books, 2015). For a more academic treatment, see Page duBois, A Million and One Gods: The Persistence of Polytheism (Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press, 2014). For various reasons, I do not recommend any of these books at present.
4. And, contrary to popular belief, that which is strict is not always negative, either!
