The above statement is my fledgling Pagan theology and is the result of the following reflection activity.
Which theological positions do I identify with?
Feminist theology:
I don't identify with feminist theology, but I am thankful for how the movement provoked me to consider theology from another perspective. I remember the first time I heard of feminist theology was in a Christian graduate theology course. It was presented as a way to contrast "orthodox" theology. Since that time I had this nagging question in the back of my mind about the patristic nature of the Bible and Evangelical Christianity. I was constantly amazed by how women within that group accepted the implied denigration of their sex. Now, as a Pagan, I like the idea that the divine is of a dual nature, male and female. To me, a dual natured deity just makes sense, and I can't understand how so many for so long accepted the notion that God is male only. Even "he" created humans in his image, male and female. I realize that there is a great deal of theological discussion within the "orthodox" theology I was brought up on that addressed the concept of God not being limited by gender/sex, but the male pronoun used in the Bible contributes to the tacit understanding that the Christian God is male.
Process theology:
Process theology is the idea that the divine is in a constant process of becoming; very much like the cosmos and humanity itself (Kraemer, 2012). Process theology is adopted by many Pantheists because they view deity as immanent in creation. The concept of process theology is intriguing to me, primarily because it collides with my thoroughly ingrained former concept that God is eternal and immutable. Before becoming a Pagan, my concept of God was synonymous with immutability. Now I am rethinking my theology and the idea that God/Goddess grows and changes with time provides ways for me to address some of the questions that were difficult to answer if God is unchanging. For example, has God changed his mind about a woman's role in the church? Has he changed his mind out head coverings or divorce and remarriage? I am no longer in the church, so these questions are moot, but they were problematic for me at one time. At this point I have incorporated process theology into my theological position.
Soft polytheism:
In contrast to hard polytheism, soft polytheism acknowledges many Gods and Goddesses but recognizes them as manifestations of a single entity/deity, much like monism. This deity can be referred to as Goddess/God for gender-inclusivities sake. According to Kraemer (2012), this theological perspective resembles monotheism or possibly duotheism (if the deity has a dual nature of male and female). It looks like the benefit of this perspective is the availability to interact with Gods and Goddesses from various pantheons even though one believes there is only a single (or dual) deity. These Gods and Goddesses are only different expressions of the the Goddess/God. These different expressions could also be considered archetypes of the human psyche, but still emanations of the God/Goddess. I am not inclined to adopt this position at this time because I don't like the idea that Gods and Goddesses are only expressions or manifestations of one deity.
Nontheism:
Nontheism is synonymous with a literal definition of atheism, but as Kraemer (2012) points out it does not include the connotations that often accompany atheism such as an attack on religious faith in general. Pagans who fit in this theological category often consider gods and goddesses as Jungian style archetypes. The notion of archetypes is a great way to explain and benefit from the similarities found in divine figures of myths from around the world. I must admit that I vacillate between this view and hard polytheism. Sometimes I feel like I am trying to conjure my belief in the gods, at which point I just ask myself why is it necessary for me to believe in actual deities? However, this resistance to faith in the divine could still be part of the emotional fallout I am experiencing from my still recent traumatic departure from Christianity.
Monism:
Monism is the label for a belief in the idea of oneness, specifically that there is a oneness to divine reality. And that this divine reality is transcendent. Similar to nontheism, monists could embrace archetypes as a way to interact with the many facets of human spirituality. The main difference between monism and nontheism, is the concept of an actual divine substance that underlies human spirituality and unifies all reality. Whereas nontheism does not acknowledge an actual divine entity but holds that gods and goddesses are human constructs to assist with interpreting life. At this point in my Pagan path I do not identify with this theological position.
Hard polytheism:
As the name suggests, hard polytheism is a view of the divine in which the gods exist as independent divine beings. According to Kraemer hard polytheists can be critical of soft polytheists. She describes their critique as somewhat dogmatic in nature. To me this critical dogmatic tendency of some hard polytheists is kind of a turn-off. However, I like the idea within hard polytheism that the gods and goddesses are real and separate entities with which one may establish and develop on-going relationships. As a young Pagan, I find it difficult to identify gods or goddesses with whom I would like to interact. From my reading I understand that I have the freedom to interact with the Divine without knowing their names or particular characteristics. I think I will say that this is the view with which I identify, even though I do not currently interact with specific deities or pantheons. I anticipate this will change as I grow in knowledge and experience, getting to know who the various gods and goddesses are and what their areas of focus.
Animism:
Animism is the concept that all things, animate or inanimate, have a spirit. For example, animals, plants, rocks, streams, and mountains all have individual spirits. This concept can be held by polytheists as well as other theological positions. I really like this concept because it allows me to connect with the environment in which I live and the things that I observe from day to day. This is one of the things that drew me to Paganism in the first place, a faith that is connected to what I see and observe, such as the cycles of the moon and sun. Connecting with places, animals, and plants has always been a part of me. Throughout my life I have often felt a sort of resonance with other entities such as animals, plants, and places. I denied this experience while I was on my Christian walk, but it was still a part of me. This position is definitely a part of my theological thinking.
Experiential theology:
Experiential theology is not necessarily a theological position distinct from those discussed above, but a way to approach theology. In most of the Pagan books I've read, Paganism is more about practice than belief or doctrine. In my opinion practice/ritual is a way to experience what I believe, or at least a way to enforce, enrich and develop what I believe. I really hope to establish some ritual practices to take my Pagan experience to the next level. So I would say that experiential theology is a part of my theological thinking.Summary:
Based on the theological positions discussed above I would say that I approach theology from experiential and process perspectives, and I am a hard polytheist animist who is informed by feminist theology.
