Image of Godhead or Anthropomorphic Idolatry

 

In the lecture that I attended presented by Andras Corbin-Arthen at Paganicon, he made the point that to use anthropomorphic images of the deity is contrary to a religion that worships nature. In doing so, we are placing human-kind at the pinnacle of godhead and thereby allowing and even excusing human domination and exploitation of our natural world. He stated that indigenous pagan groups around the world do not use anthropomorphic images of their deities, and in fact, their concept of godhead is altogether different, and perhaps devoid of deities altogether.

This was one of the issues that he brought up that I did not agree with and felt that it was an oversimplification, or even a conflation of two different issues. First, we need to define exactly what deities are, where they reside and their overall function or purpose. One of the first things that I will bring up here is that the reality of deities is not to be found in the material world. There are neither super-human nor supernatural beings in our material universe. Yahweh or Zeus doesn’t live in the sky or in a palace on the highest mountain. We have explored the whole planet, and even other planets, and the natural world seems to lack any kind of super-human or supernatural beings. If there are gods and goddesses, where are they? Where do they reside?

In my various books I have stated that nearly all of the spiritual and magical phenomena that we humans experience are part of the greater domain or field of consciousness. Whether that consciousness can exist independently of human beings is a big question. I for one, believe that consciousness has an existence and reality all its own, but others have disagreed. Are deities accessible to the animal and plant kingdoms of the earth? That is another interesting question. I would suspect that animals do not need deities to function and perceive spirit; their world is complete and whole for them. So, it would seem that the whole concept of deities and godhead are a proclivity strictly associated with human perceptions and experiences.

Spiritual consciousness, as I have experienced it over the decades, can function as a mirror to those who seek to perceive and understand what is within it. It can be an illuminating mirror, or it can be a dark and distorted one. Deities are living attributes or characterizations of the symbolic life and death of everything in the world perceived by humanity. Deities therefore have no true form, but as protean entities, assume whatever form we perceive them to be. Their function and importance is that they represent points in our collective conscious world where the disembodied consciousness assuming various deific forms can dynamically interact with our individual minds. This means that the deities are both within us and also outside of us, residing within the space of our collective consciousness. We are the deities and they are us, but they are also apart from us. Some people can sense them and emotionally engage with them, while others cannot. That engagement, however it occurs, is the basis for most of the religions of the world.

The domain of spirits, intelligences, magical powers and deities is also represented as a single agency that ties everything within that world of consciousness together in a living web of unity. When I have discussed the quality of union that pervades all things, it is based on my personal experiences of the transcendental state of consciousness perceived as the result of my most intense magical workings. It is this unity, or monism that has no name or characterization, that appears to be the foundation and the source for all spiritual and magical phenomena. We can encounter this state at brief moments of our spiritual and magical workings, and these would be peak moments of clarity and illuminated insight. It is in that moment that I have experienced spirit as a single overarching phenomenon where no individual entities reside, including myself. What that means is that if I perceive deities, then there are, for me, deities. If I perceive this domain as it truly is then there are no deities - there is a one-ness, a unity of all things and beings. Since deities function as points (or stars) within the domain of spirit representing the potential or gateway to that one-ness that is beyond their reality, then how we perceive them is a reflection on how we perceive ourselves.

If we characterize our deities as human-like, then we are making them similar to ourselves, and this is done so that groups and individuals can intimately and comfortably relate to the phenomenon of deity. It also has the power to briefly make deities equal, identifiable and accessible to ourselves. There is no fault in making use of the anthropomorphic qualities of deity in order to establish the means for experiencing union. As long as the image of the deity conforms to what the worshiper expects and desires to see, then the means of accessibility and ultimately union is possible.

The problem, and this is where I would partially agree with Andras, is where we believe that the deity we worship is absolute in its form and character. A human looking deity is a tool or mechanism that allows us to be able to identify and access this being. A deity, as I have stated, has no real shape or form itself, and it is our imagination and passions that give it an image, form and even a tangible means for union. If we can understand that our images of deity are constructed so we can access them, and that they have no real singular form or character by themselves, then I think that we will not be guilty of engaging in an anthropomorphic idolatry. Deities mirror the natural world, but they are not of the earth. They are a part of the greater domain of consciousness that exists within our minds and in the cultural of our shared world, and it is a very human centric domain. Some may be able to perceive that unity behind all spiritual phenomena, and some might not. Some may need deities to engage their spiritual sensibilities, while others might not even have such sensibilities.

Thus, I think that our perception and engagement with deities is a matter quite distinct from the way we have dominated and treated the very earth that we live in. Ecology and theology, although perhaps touching on the same points here and there, are separate concerns for the post modern world. Conflating them creates a false dichotomy and can promote confusion and division within our community.

Frater Barrabbas

Perspectives on Modern Paganism - Part 1

This is a two part series article on Perspectives of Modern Paganism. I have written this article to examine not only the phenomenon of our culture after nearly two millennia of monotheism, but also to examine and contrast that to what the ancient polytheists practices and believed. From this contrasting analysis, I believe that Modern Pagans, such as myself, can better understand the task of creating a real world religion and navigating the problems and pitfalls that monotheism has placed before us. The first part of this two part article looks at monotheism and how it has shaped our culture and world view.

Introduction

Recently, my good friend and local living Witchcraft treasure, Steve Posch, turned me on to the author Jan Assmann, a renowned German Egyptologist, professor and author. Steve was particularly intrigued by two recent books of his, which are titled “Moses the Egyptian” and “The Price of Monotheism.” You can find them at any reputable online book store. An additional book which was written more recently by Professor Assmann  (and which proposed certain ideas more clearly than the previous two) is entitled “Of God and Gods: Egypt, Israel, and the Rise of Monotheism.” My arguments and perspectives on monotheism and modern paganism will be based on Professor Assmann’s three books.

While I liked the first book, the second one was apparently written as an apologia for the first. Professor Assmann wanted to make certain that his critics and colleagues understood that he is a proponent of religious Monotheism, and he feels that the price western civilization has paid for adopting it has been far more positive than negative. The third book is by far much more an analysis of what primary pagan religions were like as contrasted to monotheism, and I found it much more useful to understand and gauge modern Paganism.

I have read these books and I am quite intrigued by what Professor Assmann has proposed as the basis for monotheism, what he calls the “Mosaic Distinction.” It is the basis for religious exclusivism and intolerance. I will define what this means further in this article, however, it would appear that the cost of monotheism in the western world is the ideology that divides the world into the faithful and the infidel “other,” which has the potential to trigger violence and sectarian based murder against a dehumanized target. If a particular religion sees itself as the only source of truth and that it’s single god is the one and only true god then all other religions and deities must therefore be false, duplicitous and heretical. Also, Judaism, Christianity and Islam function as secondary anti-religions rebelling against previous status-quo polytheistic religions that were pejoratively labeled as “idolatrous,” “pagan,” and “false religions,” they were also considered immoral, chaotic, tyrannical and unjust because they lacked sacred divinely given and enforced laws.

Each of these three monotheistic religions had a primary religion that they rejected and replaced with a revolutionary and revelatory theology. Judaism is therefore an anti-religious reaction against Egyptian idolatry, Christianity is an anti-religious reaction against Greco-Roman polytheism, and Islam is an anti-religious reaction against Arabic polytheism. They also have more or less judged each other at various times as false religions, although admittedly they do consider the one god of Israel and Judea to be their own. These are also religions that are based on holy scriptures, and therefore, as “people of the book,” they are ironically united by more similarities than differences.

In addition, monotheistic religions have sacralized the embodiment of their laws and they have made their deity the primary judge regarding these laws. These various laws, tenets and proscriptions have been written into books of sacred writing, which are also considered the “word of God.” Thus these religious laws are above the laws of humanity and cannot be either changed or mitigated because they are the provenance of the deity. Where in previous ages primary polytheistic religions sought to invest a king or ruler as the earthly representative of the deities, laws were the provenance of the ruler acting as an arbiter of the gods, which means that laws were both man-made and enforced by the ruler and his people. Only in monotheism are there specific sacred laws that transcend any human ruler or consent of the people, and only in monotheism can someone take the initiative to punish others who have either escaped, bribed or circumvented local jurisprudence. With this in mind it becomes understandable when individuals or groups commit religious inspired terrorism on others - they believe that they are acting at the behest of a higher authority. It also makes sense when groups decry and act against the secular basis of modern social and political institutions, since to them the laws set forth by their deity are above the laws established by mankind.

These anti-religions, rebelling against older polytheistic primary religions, are a recent occurrence in history although they are not the first. The monolatry of Akhenaton and his pre-eminence of the Aten disk as the one and only true god functioned as the very first exclusive religion that promoted a true religious practice (of the pharaoh) while condemning the older traditions as false and erroneous. Although Atenism in Egypt lacked many of the qualities of later monotheistic religions, it did indeed have many of the basic qualities of exclusiveness, iconoclasm and religious persecution that function as a by-product of monotheistic creeds.

The polytheistic traditions of antiquity never promoted this kind of theological exclusivity, and in fact, made an effort to establish a kind of equivalency and tolerance between all of the various faiths and practices. While their rulers made war against other peoples and their rulers, they often made peace treaties based on the deities of all parties or co-opted the deities of those who were conquered. Even in the Roman empire, people of different faiths were allowed to worship as they saw fit as long as the authority of the emperor and his cult were respected. Christians and Jews were seen as atheists because they rejected the openness and tolerance to other religions that was an important cohesive feature of the empire. Openness and tolerance also made them vulnerable to the newly emerging faiths that for the first time judged all other religions and deities as false in contrast to their own deity and creed. These new faiths represented what they passionately believed was an absolute truth. Yet prior to monotheism the distinction between true and false deities and faiths didn’t exist, but then, as well as now, it became a major obstacle for anyone practicing a different religion that did not have the same intensely declared exclusivity. When Christianity became the adopted religion of the Roman empire, the church and its authorities, with the blessing of the emperor, began to systematically eliminate the old polytheistic faiths. Religious absolutism easily trumped the laissez faire, tolerant and inclusive attitudes of the older polytheists. 

Monotheism was a reaction against the polytheism of antiquity, but should the modern Pagan revival take the same approach and become itself an anti-religion that denies the truth of all other religions? Some have recently advocated that Modern Pagans should wholly reject all of the tenets and teachings of Christianity and Judaism in order to ensure a pure and exclusive polytheistic theology. They propose that monotheism is the enemy and that in rejecting the exclusivity of that creed, Pagans should also wholly reject it and all of its theological tenets. This would unfortunately create a division between Modern Pagans and adherents of modern monotheism, thereby denigrating the unbelievers as a form of “other” that could be demonized and even targeted for persecution. While the current religious environment in the West seems polarized between secularists and religious conservatives, would adding yet another division to this conflict do more harm than good in a world that is already so divided?

I believe that this approach of purifying Paganism of Christian or Jewish beliefs or practices is much too extreme and it also seems completely contrary to what we know about ancient polytheism, which encouraged religious tolerance. We, as Modern Pagans, should see the truth in all religions and respect them as such. For as long as I can remember I have believed that the foundation for all religions is essentially the same, so it has to be a case that either all religions are valid or none of them are. To deny that any one of them is valid is to deny the basis to the validity of all religions. Thus I do believe that there are fundamental truths regarding religion and spirituality, but I don’t believe that any one religion, sect or creed has a monopoly on absolute truth.

What I have done in stating that all religions are valid is to reject the exclusivity of any one religious perspective, including my own. For instance, I don’t believe that Christianity is the one true religion and that the Christian God is the one and only deity. If this were true and my beliefs were wrong then all other religions (including the other monotheistic religions of Judaism and Islam) couldn’t possibly have any authentic religious experiences to validate them. Yet it would seem that all religions can be validated by the experiences of their followers. This is to say that spiritual and religious truth seems to be relative when it comes to a specific religion, sect or individual adherent and their practices.

A Hindu worshiping Rama will have the same powerful and valid religious experiences as someone who is either a devout Catholic, Protestant Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist or even a Modern Pagan. There is no evidence for a single absolute true deity or faith. There is nothing to invalidate anyone’s authentic religious experiences as being either superfluous, erroneous or delusional. Therefore, there is no one truth, one religion, or one deity. There are, in fact, many religious perspectives, variations on theology, practices, and authentic experiences - perhaps as many as there are individual religious seekers.

I believe strongly that Modern Paganism should avoid becoming just another secondary anti-religion with all of its exclusivity, negativity, intolerance and even the potential for prejudicial sectarian violence. As a newly emerging religion we have an opportunity to revive some of the old polytheistic philosophies and perspectives of antiquity, most importantly, a form of cosmotheism and an inclusive world-view where deity and humanity are merged within the fabric of the natural world.

We should strive to adopt the particular practices, beliefs and theologies of a primary religion and thereby return to the world of our polytheistic ancestors. However, the world around us has profoundly changed since the age of antiquity, and in many respects it cannot be changed back to accommodate a world-class pagan religion as it existed in antiquity. We will have keep in mind that nearly 2,000 years of entrenched monotheism has had a powerful impact on our culture, so we will have to build a religious institution from the ground up and also, in the process, create something entirely new. I believe that it is completely impossible to thoroughly restore the polytheism of antiquity, but I do believe that we have enough knowledge and insight to create a new Pagan faith in the modern world that is deep, enduring and I might add, inclusive.

Our task in this kind of approach to developing a Modern Pagan religious perspective is to outright reject our own exclusivity and our entrenched emotional attachments to the “truth” and to the authentic experiences of our own religious practices. We must keep in mind that these truths are relative and they are the property of all human beings; therefore, all religions are valid and worthy of respect. We also have to deal with the fact that the entire psychological foundation of religion has also been irreversibly changed by monotheism.

While in ancient times polytheism was based on a strictly immanent spiritual understanding, today we must juggle both the immanent and the transcendent. While monotheism has espoused a form of immanence, in practice it is mostly transcendent. The power of transcendentalism, as promoted by monotheism, has had an impact on our culture and even our minds. It has made us perceive spirituality as being completely outside and beyond the material world, thus it has proposed a form of spiritual and material dualism.

Transcendentalism has also made us aware of higher forms of consciousness and unlocked whole new vistas of the spiritual world, and because of this fact it shouldn’t be rejected. What is required is for us to blend transcendentalism with immanence so that we once again engage with nature as the ground and basis of all spirituality. Doing this can also heal the troubling fault of duality that has so insidiously infected western thought processes. Nature, spirit, mind, soul and body are all one within a unified field of consciousness that has its center and ground in life, but it is also boundless and infinite within the transcendental and transformative processes.

These are the things that we modern Pagans need to either leave behind or modify, but more importantly, we need to avoid sectarianism and also step completely outside of the never ending dialogue of religious based differences, bigotry and persecution that seems to be so much a part of our world today. An enlightened Pagan would consider these back and forth critiques and accusations between the monotheistic faiths as the product of the dualism inherent within monotheism. What others are pointing out and condemning in the faiths of their brothers and sisters is nothing more than their own mirror image reflected darkly and in a distorted manner. 

So it is also quite ironic to me when supposedly conservative Christian pundits talk about how scary, threatening and violent the followers of Islam seem to be, particularly the Salafi Jihadists who are a comparatively tiny minority, like the much hyped Islamic State (Daesh-ISIL). While it is necessary to condemn anyone who uses religion as a cover to persecute, oppress and murder people, not to mention vandalize priceless artifacts and historical sites, it would seem that monotheistic religions have been the main instruments for these kinds of crimes since their inception. I am certainly not talking about the greater majority of these faithful adherents, of course, but when an ideology divides people into two opposing groups (the faithful vs the infidel) then there is a potential for dehumanization and violence. Therefore, due to the actions of a tiny minority of individuals in history, all three monotheistic religions are deeply stained in the blood of innocents, regardless if that is just part of the legendary stories or based on actual history. Whether as martyrs or perpetrators, monotheistic creeds have a very bloody and unfortunate history driven in part by the exclusivity, divisiveness and intolerance that is part of the fabric of that system of belief.

While Professor Assman’s two books have mostly promoted the idea that monotheism was a great step forward in the history of religion, he seems to believe that the price that humanity has paid for this progressive movement was more than adequately offset by the positive outcome it produced. It is what he has called (quoting Freud) a “progress of intellectuality.” What I found peculiar is Professor Assmann's blindness to the fact that Europe, and by extension the U.S., found that the only way to truly move forward was to adopt societies and governments that were completely secular. Because monotheism requires the differentiation between the one true god and false gods (of the pagans), and that it stipulates that those opposed to its orthodoxy must be heretics (and thereby eliminated), it cannot tolerate different creeds or opposing theological perspectives.

Europe was torn apart by centuries of war because of the struggles between Protestant and Catholic Christians, the incursion and deflection of Muslims, and of course, the all too frequent pogroms against the Jews. The current modern western propensity for secular government is a direct result of this interminable conflict and warfare, and it, more than anything else, is responsible for our passage from the middle ages into modernity. Even so, Professor Assmann ignores all  of this to lamely propose that monotheism is responsible for our current progress. If anything, we have progressed despite the resistence of orthodox religions. This unrelenting strife between secularism and religious conservatism is one of the more troubling aspects of our world in the 21st century.

Professor Assmann also disparages modern paganism, comparing it to the failed attempts at determining a “prisca theologia” in the renaissance and essentially writing off more modern attempts as poor alternatives. I have found Jan Assmann’s books to be both enlightening and also problematic. How do we respond to his obvious statements that modern Paganism is greatly inferior to monotheistic faiths, when these same faiths appear to be the source of unresolvable issues and conflicts that are bedeviling our post modern world today. I think that the world is very much in need of religious and cultural tolerance as espoused internally by a religious faith as opposed to enforced externally by secular states, so perhaps Modern Paganism can provide the impetus for such a movement.

However, what Professor Assmann has said about modern Paganism, although harsh, has some merit to it. We as modern Pagans haven’t really defined our religion in a concise manner and that is because it is still being formulated. Studying the polytheism of ancient times (as well as fellow Pagans in India) might provide us with some useful examples and ideas for us to explore and develop. Professor Assmann’s third book was very helpful in providing me with a working model of ancient paganism and I would like to present some of those ideas here. Keep in mind that Professor Assmann’s perspective are the religious practices of the ancient Egyptians, and that this model will diverge when we consider the polytheism practiced by Greece and Rome.

Frater Barrabbas

Learning Paganism in the Modern Age

One of my pet peeves is that I believe we are still sorting out what it is to be a pagan in the post-modern age, and yet there are people out there who insist on conserving their traditions above all else. While it’s good to keep documentation for historical purposes, performing the same sparse, boring liturgical lore year after year doesn’t automatically make one either a pagan or a witch. I believe there has to be some real thought and inspiration given to what it means to be a pagan, and this requires quite a bit of thinking outside of the box, as it were. (An even better term for this activity would be thinking outside of the “Book of Shadows.”)

Some of the things that Sam Webster has been writing about at the Patheos blog site are sensible, challenging and actually quite practical; but they also reveal a certain superficiality to the basic modern Pagan and Wiccan mind-set. The two specific articles that I am referring to are his articles on restoring idolatry and also restoring sacrifice. You can find them here and here. I think that he has made some really good points, so I would like to review and discuss some of those issues that he has presented in these articles.

One of the things that he has previously stressed is that modern Pagans need to develop a personal relationship with their deities so that their religious experience is based on their own personal experiences and perspectives and not that of the tradition or group. Another thing that he has talked about is the importance of sacrifice, and he is referring here to the actual ritual killing of animals. Mr. Webster has also proposed that would-be pagans should also engage in the practice of animating statues and treating them as key access points for communing with the Deities that they represent. I have some opinions about these ideas, so let us first build some context to understand the pagan religious beliefs of those who lived in antiquity. 

If we review what ancient paganism was like in the European Mediterranean arena, at least according to Walter Berkert, then we can see that there were actually three domains through which the overall pagan religion was performed and celebrated. The first and highest level was the domain of the polis or the city-state, which was basically the state sponsored religious practices. This would also have included the mystery schools, even though they functioned outside of the bounds of the polis. The next level would have been the family tradition, headed up by the pater familias or head of household, and it would have included family based deities and practices associated with the household, including the lares and penates, threshold deities, hearth deities and a host of other entities. The lowest level was that of the individual, who could have their own private and personal relationship with a specific deity or deities as well as membership in one of the mystery colleges (as a participant). So, these are the three levels that broadly represented the sphere of pagan religious activity in antiquity.

Regarding animal sacrifice, this rite was typically performed at the level of the state religion of the polis, but it could also be found in the family tradition and the religious activities of the individual. Animal sacrifice at the state level consisted of large animals, such as cattle, oxen and the like. Family traditions typically would sacrifice smaller animals, such as goats and rams, and individuals might sacrifice doves or other smaller, less expensive animals. Mystery colleges sometimes employed large or small sacrifices, depending on the cult and level of social engagement. We will examine animal sacrifice and try to determine if modern paganism needs to adopt it or if other surrogates can be used instead.

As far as idolatry is concerned, ancient pagans incorporated statues and works of art to represent what I would call access points where groups and individuals could commune with and bask in the numinousness of their Deities. They didn’t believe that the statues or works of art were themselves the actual Deities, but that they represented a sacred place where the spirit of the Deity could reside. This form of idolatry was central to most of the state religious temples, mystery cults, homes and even individuals. Homes had their special shrines and niches where the Gods could be accessed, and individuals had their small portable figurines that they could place in a family shrine, in their sleeping quarters or to take with them on journeys. Even slaves had their representations of the Gods in their possession. Idolatry required rituals that could cause the Deity to inhabit the statue or figurine (some kind of blessing/charging), and then it would require periodic offerings and devotions in order to keep it fully vested with the spirit of the Deity. In the state polis religious cults, statues were fed, dressed, taken out in public and treated as living dignitaries; this also occurred within the mystery colleges as well.  

When Christianity displaced paganism towards the end of the Roman empire, what it did was to replace the various state pagan cults with the practices and beliefs of the Christian church, and it also forced the mystery colleges to shut down. What it didn’t immediately displace was the family tradition or the religious beliefs and practices of the individual. That happened slowly, over a long period of time and it probably took centuries. If any pagan religious traditions remained, they would have been found in the practices and beliefs of the family. It would have been easy to disguise or loosely reinterpret pagan family traditions so that they would seem outwardly Christian. This is one possible way in which some practices and beliefs that were obviously pagan in origin might have survived the forced Christian mass conversion of an entire populace. Another possible survival would have been the various magical practices that individuals would have employed (or paid others to perform for them) to aid them in times of sickness, distress, injustice or untimely death.

In our modern world, we have attempted with some success to reconstitute the pagan religions of antiquity. However, what is missing in this attempt at reconstruction and recreation represents a greater deficit overall than one might actually think. Wiccan and Pagan groups have managed to reconstitute what would have been the family religious traditions of antiquity, with some allowed extensions because the members of these modern groups are not actually part of a family. So modern Pagan and Wiccan religious practices are a kind of fusion between an extended family tradition with some mystery school elements thrown in for good measure. However, what is missing, of course, is the state sanctioned religion and also, oddly, the religion of the individual. Idolatry and sacrifice have also been omitted, or at least performed in an inconsistent or substituted manner. These practices can be given new life if they are redefined and established within the practices that have already been developed for these various traditions. (Of course, I am omitting various types of modern reconstructed heathenism from these considerations.)

So, what we have in modern Wicca and Paganism is a kind of truncated hybrid religious system, or at least when it’s compared to the pagan religious practices of antiquity. While it is obvious that we are unlikely to ever see paganism becoming so populous and large that it can facilitate a kind of state sponsored pagan religion (nor would we want to invalidate our secular government  institutions), we can at least bring the hybrid family tradition down to the individual level and thereby activate two of the three levels of paganism from antiquity. I also believe that it would be beneficial to reconstitute a modern version of the mystery colleges and open them to all religiously pagan individuals. Reconstituting the pagan religion for the family traditions, individuals and the mystery colleges would go a long way to rebuilding a comprehensive pagan religion in the modern world. So would incorporating some form of idolatry and sacrifice.

How do I define the pagan religion of the single individual? According to Berkert, individuals in antiquity often engaged in a personal approach to one specific deity for various practical or religiously inspired reasons. It was usually precipitated by a very specific need, such as health issues, the desire for justice, trying to deal with catastrophic changes or seeking some kind of physical validation of life. What it entailed was a process referred to generally as “henotheism,” or the devotion and focus on one specific deity within a pantheon of deities. Henotheism required specific and periodic personal devotions, sacrifices, offerings and spiritual service for the deity itself as well as its social institutions (temple precinct, priesthood, etc.). There might also be a mystery school associated with that deity, but usually, it was just a powerful inclusive relationship established between the individual worshiper and the deity.

As I have said previously, Sam Webster has said that Pagans and Wiccans need to establish a deep and powerful relationship with one or more Pagan Deities. I wholly agree with this sentiment, and I believe doing so will open the door to a kind of pagan spirituality that would not be found within the modern tradition or group. Therefore, I advocate a kind of individual henotheism, since that would be the easiest activity for an individual to perform. Because the intensity and breadth of each group is represented by the common denominator of the individual members, then if each individual develops a personal pagan religious spirituality, the overall group will become spiritually deeper and its rites will be more meaningful. Certainly, having a deeply spiritual perspective will help a group to evolve its liturgy and beliefs because the Pagan Deities will be truly alive within each individual member.

Here is how I would organize and assemble a periodic pagan practice for the individual or family group. There are five categories for these kinds of activities, and they consist of offerings, devotions, sacrifices, worship via idolatry and communion, and spiritual service to the community. These practices would be periodic and they should be established in some kind of calendric system associated with the cycles of the moon and the sun. There would be daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal activities that represent the ever turning and changing cycles, yet that place (in the center) where the Deities would preside would be unchanged and eternal. Let us briefly examine each of these five categories in greater detail so they might be better known.

First, it is assumed that the individual or the group has some kind of place or location in their living space to set aside for their pagan spiritual activities and to build some kind of shrine. It doesn’t have to be grandiose, and in fact it can be simple and tucked away in a part of the house where it will be accessible but not interfere with the normal flow of activities. The shrine should have some basic attributes, such as a flat table-top where candles, dishes, incense burners, flower vases, and if possible, a statue or some kind of figurine of that Deity can be placed. Whether the purpose is to focus on just one pagan Deity or to engage with a collection of Deities, it is up to the individual or group to fully research and learn everything that one could possibly know about each of those Deities or the one Deity that is to be the focus of the shrine. (We should also keep in mind that a shrine with more than one Deity would require that each be accorded their own separate individual liturgical workings.) The shrine is used to hold items that are symbolically associated with the Deity, and that would include the color of the cloth used to cover the table-top of the shrine. The shrine niche could even include posters of the Deity and any other appropriate artwork. A pillow or meditation matt would also be a useful for any of the ritual work to be done before the shrine. 

Votive Offerings - these practices represent regular gifts to the Deity that signify that it is resident and active in the shrine. These offerings would include lit candles or oil lamps, incense, flowers, portions of food and drink. It could even include special gifts, such as items that symbolically represent the Deity. For instance, if the Deity was Aphrodite, then sea shells, pearls and other kinds of symbolic objects could be given as votive offerings to the Deity. Typically, votive offerings are repetitive and represent the periodic upkeep of the Deity as associated with its focus, which would be a statue or figurine.

Active Devotions - these practices are performed as types of adoration, glorification and the declaration of love and commitment to the Deity. Similarly to how you would romance a lover beyond your station, the practices of devotion represent the expression of love and worship that one feels for a specific Deity. Forms of devotion would include poetry, historically researched paeans (such as the Homeric Hymns to the Gods), declared glorifications, songs, music and even dance. Sleep incubation in order to communicate with the Deity while in a dream-state is another form of active devotion. 

Sacrifices - these practices are special events and are typically performed during calendric seasonal celebrations or when a greater offering is needed than what is covered by votive offerings. While some have stated that Pagans and Witches need to master the art of actual animal sacrifice, I believe that there are plenty of modern surrogates for this practice. The reason why I believe surrogates will work is that the knowledge required to properly sacrifice an animal and the efficient butchering of that victim is generally beyond the ability of modern people. This is because few actually possess these skills, and it is important that the animal be dispatched in clean and efficient manner with little suffering or fear.

Pagans in antiquity went to great lengths to ensure that a sacrifice went smoothly and without difficulty, since if it was performed badly, if the animal panicked or something else went awry, then the auspices for that sacrifice would make it practically useless. Ancient pagans went so far as to drug the animals so that they wouldn’t experience much fear or pain when ritually killed. Once killed, the blood would need to be properly collected and used, and the carcass immediately butchered to apportion the share for the Deity as well as the worshipers. The portion for the Deity was burned up in a special fire (on a special altar) and the portion for the worshipers would have been cooked (barbequed but not burned). So, I think that for most practical situations an actual animal sacrifice is beyond the ability or scope of most (if not nearly all) modern pagans.

If an actual animal sacrifice is either unwanted or incapable of being properly performed then what are the appropriate substitutions? What I have found is that there are three earthly places where a sacrifice can be placed and so given over to the Gods. First of all, a sacrifice as I perform it is usually the collected victuals of a feast given in honor of the Gods. As the feast is arrayed, I usually collect a sample of all of the food and drink before anyone is served, thus, the Deity is served first before the worshipers. Prior to this apportioning, I have dug a small hole in the earth and started a small fire outdoors. I then take the victuals and place them in the fire (those that will properly burn, such as cooked meat), or in the earth (vegetables, salad, potatoes, rice, tubers, etc.), and the drink I pour into a nearby shallow lake. Additionally, one could dedicate a very special and precious belonging and give it to the Deity as a permanent gift by placing it on the shrine table-top. Other variations of this kind of special sacrificial offering can be delivered up, and I believe that it is quite acceptable and in accordance with modern Pagan and Wiccan practices.

Spiritual Service to the Community - these practices represent a sacrifice of time and resources in the name of the Deity that one is serving. This can be simply performed as a kind of volunteer work associated with other community volunteers. The fact that the Pagan or Witch is doing it as a service to their Deity doesn’t need to be shared with the other volunteers. Valid service can be given even if that volunteer effort is sponsored by some Christian organization. Other kinds of service could be as a Pagan minister or volunteering time and resources to the local pagan community. Regardless of the volunteer work that one employs, the stated purpose of it is to be a representative of the Deity in the community doing work that benefits those who are in need of assistance. Giving money is also another way, although not as direct and satisfying.

Pagan Idolatry - these rites are the specific liturgical ceremonies that one performs to draw down the numinous presence of the Deity into a statue or figurine, and therein, to have intimate contact and communion with it. Unless you have a proclivity for classical theurgy or are adept at modern forms of magick, then performing a specific rite to perpetually animate a statue is not something that you will be able to do. I have written up a modern approach to statue animation in an article that I posted a couple of years ago, and if you are interested, you can find it here.

However, for those who are less adept magically they can perform a periodic drawing down type of rite to imbue the statue or figurine with the essence of the Deity and this will likely suffice. All that you need to do is to write a custom drawing down ritual for your specific Deity and perform it once a month during an auspicious time, depending on the characteristics of that Godhead. You can also perform a Godhead Assumption of that Deity and perform that in addition to the Statue Drawing Rite. A special meal of cakes and wine, or bread and ale (or whatever might be appropriate for that Deity) is also typically presented to the Godhead as a special offering, and this food, once blessed and charged, is consumed by the worshipers after a certain portion is set aside for the Godhead.

The statue or figurine used in such work is referred to as an idol, but if a person becomes the focus of the Draw, then he or she is called the Idolon of the Godhead. Any person who is going to take on the temporary role of the Deity must be sequestered for a period of time and immerse themselves with the qualities and characteristics of the Godhead. They should also perform a long period of devotion so that when they perform the assumption, as little of their own personality will remain intact. Using an idol instead of an idolon ensures that the Draw will not be adversely impacted by the personality of the mediator. Still, an idolon can speak for the Deity, while the idol requires the recipient of such communication to be in an altered state of consciousness. Establishing a dialogue with the Deity is, I believe, the most important part of the practice of idolatry. Each Pagan or Witch should develop this kind of liturgical working to the point where they can periodically hear the voice of their Deity whispering in their minds words of wisdom and sagacity. Clearly, such a connection would not only inspire individuals but it might also give birth to new rituals and practices, since they would have as their guide the spoken words of the Deity itself.

So now that we have covered the five categories of a basic Pagan religious practice for the individual or the group, I believe that with a little bit of effort and practice pagan spirituality can have an important rebirth and reveal a greater spiritual depth to its adherents. I am not saying that no one is performing these kinds of liturgical operations, but perhaps not enough of us are doing them on a regular and consistent basis. If each of us had a special and potent connection to at least one Pagan Deity, then we would be able to advance our religious practices and beliefs without any worries or concerns about maintaining our doctrinal traditions. This is because our ultimate authority would be our own personal connection to our Deities. Over the course of decades and even centuries, our Pagan and Wiccan faith could then evolve into a much higher level of consciousness, and we could then see about coalescing these beliefs and practices into proper religious orthodoxies (if that would even be needed). Yet until that time in the distant future we need to discover how to behave religiously as Pagans and Wiccans in this modern world.

Frater Barrabbas