|
Note: This article is a slight elaboration on a segment in the “Brighid’s Path” article.
The Role of Theology.[1]
By Briar
Modern Druidry, or NeoDruidry as it is sometimes called, is a spiritual tradition that is often in conflict with itself.
On one hand, most people who, for one reason or another, end up on a Druid path, are independent thinkers. This is not really surprising. Had we not been that way, we would have stayed with more conventional religions. Moreover, NeoDruidry in general tends to be an intellectual religion – we insist on learning and thinking as part of our spiritual path.
On the other hand, once one delves into the concepts involved in, at least, more traditional Druidic paths, one cannot help but realize that historical Druidry was a community-oriented, Tribal religion, and probably not terribly individualistic. In fact, judging from the lore, our Ancestors considered individualism a rather dangerous, if occasionally glamorous, trait.
Moreover, most NeoDruids, in a typical human fashion, want to congregate. We want to practice in groups, we want to be among like-minded people, we want to belong to something greater than ourselves.
Finding a balance between this desire to congregate and do things in common, and at the same time remain independently functioning spiritual beings, is often tricky and fraught with all sorts of trouble.
Many groups do, in fact, end up tending towards dogma – orthopraxy[2] and orthodoxy[3] both, while others never manage to organize enough to do much of anything in common beyond occasionally fascinating conversation.
The key to finding a constructive balance, however, may very well lie in our understanding of both the concept of theology, and how to interpret our attempts at theology.
The word “theology” has come to denote many things over the centuries. For a time it was appropriated by the monolithic, authoritarian religions, and became synonymous with reciting dogma. However, in it’s original sense[4], it denotes no more and no less than a conversation. The term is compounded from two Greek words, theos (god) and logos (rational utterance), and can be translated as “reasoned discourse about the Divine”.
Far from being a unilateral declaration, a reasoned conversation about the nature of spiritual life is a growing, organic thing, and it’s function is to encourage the search for truth among peers, both individually, and as a group.
In order to hold a meaningful discourse, however, we need to have a common language – a system of symbols that we all understand. And, for a discourse to be reasoned, we need to be able to use rudimentary rules of logic – we need to start from common assumptions, or common general principles, and, sometimes at least, apply rational mechanics of thought.
This is precisely the role that theology is meant to play in a non-dogmatic religion. It gives us a common framework for conversation, and a system of symbols by which to communicate.
We need this system not only to function productively as a group, but also to communicate with the Divine and even within ourselves, because our thoughts and our words are interdependent.
I should point out that the lack of common religious language is precisely the problem with much of inter-religious dialogue – it is not that people do not necessarilywant to understand each other, it is just that they do not take the trouble to learn each other’s system of symbols and assumptions. Most arguments are really about terms rather than substance[5].
What does this “system”, this language, consist of? As any rational system is requires certain principles as a point of departure and certain pathways by which it operates. Beyond that, the only thing needful is the willingness to take the tools and run with them as one chooses.
What people almost always miss – by accident or design - is that theological systems and terms are, in some ways, very relative. It is not that the choice of terms is irrelevant, because it usually reflects the particular mind-set of the chooser, it is, rather, that it is not definitive – it does not define the reality of Godde. It cannot, because the full reality of the Divine is a fundamental Mystery. The best it can do is take on some of that reality and partially describe it. Our theology, whichever theology we choose, can only describe the Divine from the perspective of our principles (assumptions) and chosen pathways.
To understand this, and to choose our own terms to describe our Tradition is particularly important for us, both because we are Druids, and because we are Brighid’s Druids.
What distinguishes Druidry from most other Nature-oriented religions is that it strives to be, among other things, an intellectual journey.
Ancient Druids were the intellectual strata of their society, and, as their inheritors, most modern Druids view Druidry as a “religion with a homework”. Most Druids aim to combine their spiritual pursuit with their intellectual pursuit, and, characteristically, most Druids consider intellectual pursuit an important part of their spirituality. As Druids, we are encouraged to think, in other words, to use our intellectual aspects in addition to all other aspects of our being.
And so, while it is important for any religious group to have a common language – theology – for discourse, for us it is vitally important that this theology be reasonable and reasoning, questionable and questioned, tested and discussed. It is vitally important that logic, as well as emotion and instinctive insight, be our motivation and criterion, and that the two faculties, intellect and intuition, be in balance.
Additionally, because we are Brighid’s Druids, it is particularly important for us to understand and accept that whatever theology we may use – whatever our initial assumptions may be – we need to remember, always, that these assumptions are to be used to facilitate our common spiritual journey, but they are never, ever to be used as dogma or unquestionable truth. As Brighid Herself transcends religious differences, so we must transcend any temptations towards absolutism and always remember that ours is only one path among many possible paths.
It is only in this context and with this understanding that we can devise a theological system that is both meaningful, defining of a common spiritual path, and yet not confining to individual beliefs.
One way to address this kind of theology is by viewing it, as the original meaning of the word suggests, as a conversation, a process, a path rather than a destination, a relationship rather than a thing.
This is why, in TDB, we do not talk about common beliefs, but rather about common Principles of belief – we do not assume a priori that we all believe the same thing, rather we assume that when we are in community with each other, we interpret our individual beliefs from the common standpoint of these Principles, and using the same language.
As an example, consider the Principle of Panentheism.
Panentheism assumes that all things exist within an overarching Divinity we call Godde. It doesn’t say anything further than that. This Principle may be applied in a variety of belief-systems: a monotheist focuses on Godde as One, a polytheist focuses on many manifestations of Divinity (and may in fact pay no attention whatsoever to the “one-ness” part); some may choose to call Gods and Goddesses “aspects”, and some may view Them as “faces”, while still others may assume an effective independence between Them. None of these details are ultimately contradictory as long as the general Principle remains as a guide for group interaction.
This kind of dynamic applies to all the Principles: the Principles themselves are a guide for interaction, a common language, a facilitator, while any particular interpretation remains up to the individual where it belongs.
The other aspect of our Tradition, the Mysteries, are also subject to personal interpretations – in fact, as any Mystery, they are fundamentally experiential and therefore incapable of being dogmatic.
A Mystery may be viewed as a common path, or a particular direction, towards the Divine – however we choose to interpret the term “Divine”. There may be many such paths – indeed it is entirely possible, even likely, that there are infinitely many of them – but for the purposes of walking together, we choose three, in keeping with the triple aspect of Brighid.
Consider, for instance, the Mystery of The Art.
When we walk that path, what we focus on is discerning patterns, and what we cultivate is creativity. It is not particularly important that we focus our attention on any particular Deity, or any particular activity – what is important is that we perceive beauty and engage our own creative impulse within all that we do. It is an attitude that directs the path, not the cobblestones upon which we walk or the baggage that we carry. All Deities may be seen as creative, and all things may be seen as beautiful – in a variety of ways. The mindfulness and the focus of perception propels us along, and creates the commonality of purpose – without any need for forcing the attention towards any particular form.
In general terms, this kind of a system may be thought of as a “meta-theology”. As a meta-discussion addresses the way in which a discussion should be conducted rather than the conversation itself, a meta-theology addresses the way in which beliefs are developed and expressed rather than beliefs themselves, thus avoiding dogmatism while still providing for a community path.
[1] This article is a slight elaboration on the concepts originally developed in “Brighid’s Path”.
[2] “Orthopraxy” means “the right practice”.
[3] “Orthodoxy” means “the right belief”.
[4] The term was, in fact, coined by Plato in “The Republic”.
[5] This truth, incidentally, applies quite beyond merely religious discourse. Most arguments in any field whatsoever seem to stem not from genuine disagreements over ideology, but rather from misunderstanding each other’s use of language. So, next time you have an argument with someone, try asking them what, exactly, they mean when they use a particular term. You’ll see
. |
