This is a small essay that tries to show how polytheism is universal in all theistic<\/i> religious traditions. I pick Christianity to make my case, but I think Islam or Judaism would also ‘work.’ In the process those who wonder why I sometimes defend Christianity and sometimes criticize it will see why that is so.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
For thousands of years people <\/span>I want to present an Anyone knowledgeable of Western I think this puzzle is solved The Catholic God has little in The Other Christian denominations, For some Christians God is <\/span>“the The Quakers For Others The Differences All Mystical Monotheism<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n Upon An Except From
\nlived in a world populated by many spiritual forces, and did not think of them
\nas all being subordinate to or in revolt against some central divine king. <\/span>Today many scholars see their awareness as a first primitive step
\ntowards more sophisticated spiritual understandings, culminating in
\nmonotheism. <\/span>To them, we Pagans
\nseem a kind of romantic throwback or evolutionary degeneration. Even l<\/span>iberal and tolerant scholars of
\nreligion and theologians who are often friendly to non-Western Pagans often have a hard time taking NeoPagans seriously. After all, modern Westerners should know better. <\/span>(Happily this dismissive attitude is improving, but is still
\nprominent.) <\/span><\/p>\n
\nargument that this common attitude is wrong.<\/p>\n
\nhistory knows hundreds of years of religious war and well over a thousand years
\nof religious persecution characterized Europe dominated by Biblical
\nmonotheism. <\/span>Most of the killing
\nwas Christian killing Christian after they had eliminated competing faiths, and
\nhere is a puzzle I want to explore.
\n<\/span>Why so much killing when everyone initially started out agreeing on a
\nsingle text? (Even parts of the initial text were eventually rejected by some,
\nsuch as Luther’s rejection of the Epistle of James<\/a>.) <\/p>\n
\nwhen looked at from a Pagan perspective.
\n<\/span>From this vantage point, when taken inclusively<\/i> Christianity is a
\npolytheistic religion. It is only monotheistic when we consider a single church or doctrine as sanding for the religion as a whole. <\/p>\n
\ncommon with the Southern Baptist one beyond a claim to universal
\ndomination. <\/span>That is what “God
\nAlmighty” means. <\/span>More then one
\nsuch Baptist has said the Catholics are serving the Devil. <\/span>Many
\nPentecostals say the Pope is the “Whore of Babylon” described in
\nRevelations. <\/span>Many nonPentecostals
\nsay Pentecostals channel demons when speaking in tongues. <\/span>More than one Catholic has said the
\nBaptists are going to Hell. <\/span>All
\nare sincere. All have sincerely different conceptions of their God and what He
\ndesires from them.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nGod of some Missouri Synod Lutherans does not want His devotees praying with
\nnon Christians, not even in Jesus’ name. Many such Lutherans filed charges
\nagainst a Lutheran pastor who prayed at an interfaith event after 9-11, because
\nhis act could be interpreted as granting legitimacy<\/span> to other beliefs. The national second vice president<\/a> of the Missouri
\nSynod argued “to participate with pagans in an interfaith service and, additionally, to give
\nthe impression that there might be more than one god, is an extremely serious
\noffense against the God of the Bible.” <\/span><\/p>\n
\nProtestant, Catholic, and Orthodox alike, were not so bothered<\/a>. Their God was
\nmore accommodating and perhaps more secure. <\/span> The Lutheran God seems quite different in important respects from the God these
\nother denominations honor.<\/p>\n
\nGod that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some
\nloathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his
\nwrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else,
\nbut to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in
\nhis sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the
\nmost hateful venomous serpent is in ours.” <\/span>Such were the views of
\nJonathan Edwards<\/a>, America’s most famous Calvinist theologian. <\/p>\n
\nUnited Churches of Christ make a point of welcoming practicing gays and
\nlesbians, people whom some other denominations declare are abominations in the
\neyes of their <\/i><\/span>God. With apparent
\nguidance by conservative American Christians<\/a> some Ugandan fundamentalists want to execute gays and lesbians. Whether they might be UCoC members seems irrelevant. <\/span>Seems like they worship different Gods
\nto me. <\/span>Sort of like Socrates and
\nthe Aztecs both being Pagan but pretty clearly attuned to different Gods. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nbelieve the Holy Spirit speaks to and through us, hence the distinct nature of
\nQuaker meetings. <\/span>At its core,
\nQuakerism does not depend on specific beliefs from outside authorities but
\nrather upon each person’s direct experience of God. <\/span>God dwells in every soul<\/a> and Quaker meetings give people
\ntime to slow down and listen. More than a few Pagans find Quaker Meetings spiritually valuable.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nsome Christians, nothing we choose to do can win salvation. <\/span>We are predestined for heaven or hell
\nbecause it was God who chooses who goes to heaven, and who to hell. From a
\npurely human standpoint all are equally unworthy. Technically this is called
\n‘double predestination’ because God chooses whom to save and whom to damn. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nhold that good works and sincere repentance will win salvation. <\/span>Others that faith alone is all that is
\nnecessary. <\/span>These are radically
\ndifferent conceptions of not only our relationship to God, they are radically
\ndifferent understandings of what kind of being God is. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\ndifferences continue. <\/span>Original sin
\nis a key element in most Western Christianity, accepted by Catholics and
\nProtestants alike. <\/span>However, the
\nEastern Orthodox churches do not believe in original sin. In one case we are guilty of sin at birth, in the other we are not. <\/span>It could not get much more different
\nthan that.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nbetween Catholic and Orthodox views led to the Byzantine “Massacre of the
\nLatins”<\/a> where Catholics were killed or sold as slaves to Muslim Turks. <\/span>Special nasty attention was paid
\nto <\/span>clergymen. <\/span>The later Catholic capture and
\nsack of Constantinopl<\/a>e during a Fourth Crusade supposedly to fight Muslims led
\nto the desecration of Orthodox sacred sites. <\/span>The subsequent Catholic domination
\nof Constantinople led to many Orthodox Christians preferring Muslim rulers over
\nCatholic Christian ones.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nthis variety in the name of monotheism is perplexing, to say the least. <\/span>I suggest it is because the entire idea
\nof monotheism is suspect when that deity is considered in other than a mystical
\nvein. Rather, what we are looking at from a Pagan point of view is a diverse
\npolytheism, but with each deity, or the devotees of ach deity, usually claiming
\nsole dominion over the whole. Because they worship different Gods under the
\nsame name, in 2000 years sincere Christians have never been able to agree on
\ncentral matters of doctrine.
\n<\/span>Christians worship a God who loathes us, and a God who loves us, <\/span>a God who surrounds us with intricate
\nrules that we violate at the cost of our souls and a God who only requires us
\nto take Jesus as savior, a God who holds us guilty of Original sin, and a God
\nwho holds us guilty only of sins we personally commit. <\/span>The variety of sincere interpretations
\nfrom a single text is remarkable, and to the degree unity has existed it has
\ncome from political force, not the persuasive power of argument and faith.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nhearing my argument some Christians have told me that this diversity is not
\npolytheism, that, for example, their God is a God of justice as well as a God
\nof love. <\/span>Setting aside what
\nconstitutes justice and its relation to love, and that there is no agreement on
\nthat issue, if this argument is true then why all the religious wars and
\nkillings and intolerance between Christians? <\/span>It goes back about 2000 years. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nhonest observer would note that a great many people have proven willing to die
\nfor these various beliefs, and often shifted from one perspective to another
\nthrough great personal introspection and prayer. <\/span>Sincerity and prayer have not led seekers to a common
\nunderstanding, yet the traditional doctrines of monotheism say there is ONE way
\nthat is right. <\/span>Two thousand years
\nof history testify that the Biblical tradition has no solution to this dilemma. <\/span>Except…<\/span><\/p>\n
\nfor the Christian mystical traditions, which often become indistinguishable at
\nthe level of reported experience from other dualistic mystical traditions. <\/span>This is why Augustine, a Christian,
\ncould learn and admit he learned, from Plotinus, a Pagan<\/a>. <\/span>These traditions agree that the
\nUltimate is beyond adequate expression or description in words and that the
\nhuman mind is incapable of grasping its reality.<\/span><\/p>\n
\na Pagan perspective that takes the mystical experience seriously, as I do, the
\nnature of the Gods we honor falls pretty neatly into place. <\/span>They are all <\/span>expressions\/emanations of this Source, as are we. <\/span>Their closeness to this source is shown
\nin terms of their qualities, on which there seem to be two dimensions. <\/span>First, the mystical reports say this
\nsource is loving and good. <\/span>How
\nloving and good is the particular entity we are encountering? <\/span>Second, how individualized is it? <\/span>I will set this very interesting point
\naside for purposes of this little essay.
\n<\/span>But it’s important and I am still wrestling with dimensions of its
\npossible significance. <\/span>One
\nrelevant point, love is impossible without individuality, for in its absence
\nthere is nothing to love.<\/span><\/p>\n