Ancient Pagan theology

 

 

 

What would a contemporary Pagan theology look like?

 

Yvonne Aburrow

 

NB - what I mean by "a pagan theology" is "a distinctive pagan theology" NOT "a single unified pagan theology".

 

  • It would have to take into account the wide variety of beliefs within the Pagan movement (Polytheism, Animism, Duotheism, Henotheism, Pantheism, Panentheism, Monotheism, even Atheism);
  • It would describe how the various beliefs can exist alongside each other;
  • It would be descriptive not prescriptive (it would describe people's beliefs and practices rather than telling them what to believe); as a result it would also be multivalent and have multiple perspectives;
  • It would need to account for the problem of evil (theodicy), since the majority of Pagans do not believe that the world is fallen;
  • It would focus on the mutuality of theory and practice (you can't have one without the other);
  • It would draw upon both current and ancient sources, without treating them as canonical;
  • It would explain how Pagans can identify as Pagans without having to subscribe to a standard set of beliefs (and in some cases, without ever reading any books about it at all, or going to events)
  • It would explore ethics - can or should they be codified? Are virtue ethics enough?
  • It would be about embodiment (being in the body, in the world, actually practicing one's religion); but it would also discuss the nature of the soul and what happens after death

 

To start with, one would probably need to focus on quite small areas (like theodicy, ethics, or a particular tradition), rather than trying to cover the whole topic.

 

At the moment there are a few books on Pagan theology, and people are starting to discuss it, but it's not a full-blown discourse as yet, more a bunch of memes; hence my question, what would it look like (not what does it look like).

 

What should it be called?

 

To most people, "theology" implies dry-as-dust arguments about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. (The answer is, an infinite number, obviously.) But that is not what theology is about. It's about how the divine realm interacts with this world.

 

Theo = god

Logos = word, reason

 

Apparently the term theology was coined by Cicero in De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods).

 

Christian theology has no problem naming itself because it deals with reasoning about a male god. But for Pagans, the term "theology" is rather problematic. The "theo" part is difficult because most of us don't believe in a single deity, and for those who do, it either has no gender or is a goddess.

 

The term logos is rather problematic as well. Whilst we want things to be reasonable, most of us don't believe that reason alone can access the ineffable. Jung put forward the idea (based on the four elements) that consciousness has four main modes, Sensation (Earth), Intuition (Fire), Emotion (Water), and Intellect (Air). We need all of these to access the spiritual; and Logos implies only one, Intellect.  A Quaker, L. B. Callid Keefe-Perry, has suggested the name theopoetics for a discourse that would include postmodern thought, prcoess theology and poetic understandings of the Divine.

 

The excellent book, Sophia: Aspects of the Divine Feminine, Past & Present by Susanne Schaup (a Christian and psychotherapist), makes the case for the return of the divine feminine, Lady Wisdom or Sophia. Sophia includes Sensation, Intuition and Emotion, creating a synthesis based on direct mystical and sensory experience.

 

So maybe we should call Pagan theology "theasophy"? But it sounds too much like theosophy, which is already in use. I tend to use the term in the plural (theologies) to emphasise that we are not trying to create an orthodoxy, but rather to explore the multiplicity of perspectives. We could call it philosophy, the love of Wisdom (but that term is also in use).

 

But won't having Pagan theology/ies mean the imposition of orthodoxy?

 

Hinduism (also an umbrella term for a selection of heterodox beliefs) has theology, and it is not a single overarching theology, nor does it impose orthodoxy.

 

We tend to have orthopraxy (consistent practices, literally 'right practice') in Paganisms, rather than orthodoxy. But as soon as there is an encounter between different belief systems, you get theology and frequently syncretism. So in a way, theology is necessarily an interfaith and comparative activity, even though each tradition (and individuals within traditions) have their own distinct theologies. I do not think it is possible to impose orthodoxy within Paganisms (and it is certainly not desirable to do so).

 

I am using the term in the plural to imply that there are distinct strands within Pagan theology, but I don't have a huge problem with using theology in the singular, as other academic disciplines do, even though they may contain mutually exclusive philosophical positions. For example the discourse of psychology contains behaviourist and social constructionist views (which are mutually exclusive), but we do not refer to "psychologies". However, for the benefit of those who think that the term 'theology' implies a discourse that must be internally consistent, I am using the plural. If I wanted to imply an internally consistent set of views within the discourse of theology, I would either say 'a theology' or prefix it with an adjective to distiguish it (e.g. liberation theology within Christian theology).

 

I am not trying to define anything here. What I want to do is describe what is happening out there. To open up avenues for discussion (but not debate, which tries to narrow things down until you find the "right

answer"). To share our world-pictures so that by getting an overlapping, multi-perspective view, we can transcend our temporally- and spatially-focused individual perspective and walk in others' moccasins (but not try to fit everyone to the same style of moccasins).

 

"I am using the plural 'theologies' here deliberately. A polytheistic religion gives many different accounts of the divine beings, and these accounts, or theologies, reflect the divine patronage of their inventors. People sometimes raise their eyebrows when they hear of Pagan theology, but in fact the word 'theology' dates from Pagan times and was first used concerning Pagan deities."

 

from Pagan Pathways essay on "Pagan Theologies" by Prudence Jones, Page 32.

Further thoughts...

 

From Judy Harrow:

 

I guess a lot hangs on what we mean by "theology." If it means developing some dogmatic required belief system, I know I personally want none of that and neither do many other Pagans that I know. But for me, theology means reflecting on the practice, teasing out what my religious experience means to me, what guidance and empowerment it contributes to my life.

 

Some forms of Buddhism are non-theistic. They were very loud and clear about that at the 1993 Parliament of the World's Religions, and they certainly have a seat at the Interfaith table now.

It seems to me that, if we accept a very narrow, and essentially Abrahamic, definition of what a "religion" or a "theology" is, we are putting our rights at risk, and losing a chance to advocate for our own core values in the ongoing conversation that guides collective behavior.

 

From Grant Potts:

 

Part of what I have noticed over the years is that contemporary Pagans tend to reject the idea of a Pagan theology because they associate the latter primarily with the formation of intellectual doctrine.  This neglects the reality of contemporary theology, even within Christianity, which often understands itself as more of a rhetorical practice than as the hammering out of a body of doctrines.

 

My suggestion would be to avoid the practice/doctrine, practice/theory split within evolving Paganisms, and to advocate a theological conversation which also sees itself as a practical affair, engaging the intellectual and imaginative dimensions of Pagan life just as ritual and performance tends to engage the more embodied dimensions.

 

I would also argue that most pagans do use theological concepts already in their religious practice.  I notice assumptions about the nature of deity, humanity, and the cosmos come flying out of Pagan mouths in conversation about their religious lives.  What I note is a resistance to the formalization of such concepts, a resistance that seems more rooted in a concern for avoiding a universal body of doctrines then it does for a preference for practice.

 

Whether such a concern is valid or not, the fact is formalization does not necessitate creating a universal set of doctrines.  I think one of the strengths of Graham Harvey's Animism book is that it really provides a set of relatively open-ended formal concepts for engaging in a conversation about Animism, both in critical and constructive discourses about the subject.

 

Further questions

Trystn

1. Is your theology active or passive?

2. Is your theology interactive or canonic?

3. Is Godhead Transcendant or Immanent? Is it both? Is it neither?

4. Do the Gods form a Pantheon or a Tribe of the Gods?

5. Is devotion to a specific God, Goddess, Sacred Couple or Cluster considered a) Cultish b) Heretical c) Normal d) Hickish/ Clannish / Tribal (aka Pagan) e) "elitist" (and here you bring in the whole idiocy

of religio-political-ideological behaviors)

6. Is there a designated Priesthood? (Does your Paganism follow the "Clergy and Sheep" Model?)

7. Does the Religion consist of nothing but a Priesthood? (and therefore practitioners mediate between the World of the Gods and the Middle World for themselves and their loved ones and group worship consists of a

group mediation as Peers - another term for this is Mystery Tradition)

8. What practices are regarded as "Sacred?" What practices are regarded as "Profane?" Are supposedly "profane" behaviors actually sacred acts according to core tenets of the theological model?

9. What specific Acts of Worship illustrate parts of your theology or Canon Beliefs?

10. What is the relationship between your Place of Worship and your Theology? Do your rules about Sacred Precincts contradict other portions of your theology?

11. Does your theology contradict itself? Are the contradictions Paradoxes that teach theological lessons or are they Theological Flaws / Hypocrisies?

Further reading

 

 

 


Page Information

  • 1 week ago [history]
  • View page source
  • You're not logged in
  • No tags yet learn more

Wiki Information

Recent PBwiki Blog Posts