What Makes Theology Queer?

I mentioned in an earlier article in this column that some modern Pagans have suggested that theology doesn't really have a place in modern Paganism, and that Paganism as a religion isn't really appropriate to the concerns of theology. It was mentioned on that earlier occasion, though, that ancient Pagans in Greece and Rome invented most of the vocabulary of theology—including the term itself. The reservations of some modern Pagans on theology are understandable, and the ways in which Christianity has dominated the discourse on theology for the past several millennia are certainly a concern and something of which any Pagans actively engaged in theological work should be aware. Nonetheless, it is an area that is not only historically relevant to Paganism and polytheism, but one that is quite necessary to confront for modern Pagans.

Not unlike the term "religion," it has been assumed far too often that "theology" is something that institutional religions dominate and determine. It is true (again!) that for the past several millennia, this has been the case. Yet, just because institutional religions have often been involved in something, and have asserted that they are the only valid authorities on particular topics, does not mean that such is the case. Institutional religions do not own the terms "religion" or "theology" any more than they own candles, incense, or the term and role "priest."

There has been an assumption that often goes along with this type of thinking that modern Paganism is a "spirituality" rather than a "religion." I would suggest that one cannot have a spirituality without a religion; if "religion" is understood as the systematized articulations and understandings of a particular sort or range of divine experiences, and if "spirituality" is understood as the set of practices and techniques that are developed to aid someone in having contact with divine realities. These terms are ones that are not easy to define, and over which many have contested various definitions, but I find those definitions work quite well, for Paganism throughout history as well as for other religions. Both religion and spirituality depend upon each other, as a religion not practiced (i.e. with no spirituality) is no religion at all, and a spirituality without beliefs (i.e. without systematized articulations of divine experiences), with no notion of what "spirit" is or why anyone should care, is no spirituality either. Being a connoisseur of colored candles and deity statues, without knowing why different candle colors are useful and who the deities depicted are and how to interact with them—which is to say, the trappings of spirituality without religion underlying it—is rather useless. Likewise, saying "I believe" about any number of religious viewpoints, including that there are goddesses and gods, and that an apprehension of their presence is possible in and amid the material world through a variety of experiences, without pursuing those experiences and utilizing those techniques—in other words, the semblance of religion without spirituality supporting it—is also rather useless. I think this would be the case from any possible Pagan perspective, but probably also from the viewpoint of most other recognized world religions as well.

However, over and above (and under and below!) all of this remains one factor that, in my understanding at least, has often been ignored: to talk at all of religion, and to engage in discussion at all of spirituality, one has to already have theology in order to do so. One cannot do religion or spirituality without one another, and likewise one cannot do either of those without theology. Though theology, in certain academic contexts, as well as within some religious frameworks, has often been done in a vacuum with no interest in practice or in the everyday lives and realities of humans living in the world (both within particular religions and outside of them/more widely), it is best done and most useful when it is grounded in the religious and spiritual contexts from which it not only arises, but which it uniquely gives the vocabulary and, in essence, the medium through which to engage with these realities and practices.

But what, precisely, is "theology," and how is it defined? It's a difficult and contentious issue, and many suggestions have been made on this over the centuries (as with "religion" and "spirituality"). Two definitions I've heard employed in the theological discourses of some major world religions have been "faith seeking understanding," and "the interaction between religion and culture." I think both of these are potentially useful. Yet, the first of these has the difficulty of using the term "faith" as an integral part of it, and while I have a preferred definition of that term that I think works well and that resonates with my own experiences, it is not the common definition. Thus, the waters are muddied somewhat if that overall definition of "theology" is employed. The second definition given above assumes that theology's usefulness is only in relation to cultural realities outside of religion, which I think is a false distinction, because religions arise within cultures and cultural contexts, and cannot be removed from them to a very great extent (despite the imperialistic and universalistic claims of some monotheistic religious juggernauts). I generally think, therefore, that there is a simpler and more literal manner in which to understand the term "theology," which is much more applicable to polytheism and forms of modern Paganism: theology is, simply, "words on/about gods." (Note, not words of/from gods ...that's something else entirely!)

In the midst of an experience of divine realities (in which words of/from gods can sometimes play a part), even the most spare and unembroidered description of events cannot help but use pre-existing theological language and concepts. When it comes to discussing such experiences in the aftermath, however, theology is most certainly the medium in which such discourses occur. Some may argue, both in Pagan religions as well as outside them, that because divine realities and experiences are "beyond thought," and are outside the abilities of language, understanding, conception, and even rationality to apprehend, it is a contradiction and a paradox, if not an outright impossibility, to speak of such things. If one's deity is a transcendent, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent (as well as various other "omni-" characteristics), that would certainly be the case, simply because of the disparity of scale between that which is receiving information (i.e. the human having a divine experience) and that which is being perceived. Since when are the gods of both ancient and modern Paganism, however, described in these manners?

Yes, the gods are far larger and more powerful than humans are; and yet, humans have been able to distinguish over the centuries the differences between, say, Odin, Hermes, Lug, and Thoth, and not just because each arose within a particular culture's understanding of a deity who is concerned with words and linguistic magic (amongst other things that are often more particular to each of these individual deities). Certainly, my own particular viewpoint as a certain type of polytheist influences my suggestion here—but yet again, how does one working in only one cultural stream (say, the Hellenic one...even though there are several individual and discernible streams within that culture as well!) tell the difference between a divine experience of Hermes and one of Hekate, or of Athena? Each of these deities has specific attributes and associations that have been transmitted over the ages, and the character of each of the experiences of these deities will be shaped by the individual character of the god. But, if individual characteristics can be discerned at all, then one is not dealing with something that transcends understanding. The experience may still be mysterious or unexpected or difficult-to-parse initially, but often discussion with others, research, divination, and other means can clarify what deity one might have been experiencing in a given circumstance.

This is where the theological language and norms of mysticism, of "direct encounters" with divine realities, as inherited and adopted from dominant monotheistic discourses, has been assumed without question or further examination as the across-the-board norms and expectations for legitimate experiences of divine realities within forms of modern Paganism, to Paganism's detrimental effect. If there is neither need for nor acknowledgement of such an omnipotent, all-knowing, and ever-present deity to have a legitimate religion, why then would the (non-) characteristics of such a deity's direct experiences have to apply to the experiences of deities who are not like that?

I certainly don't deny that there are some types of divine experience, for a variety of reasons, which can be beyond one's individual understanding, apprehension, or ability to articulate at any given moment. But that is no excuse for laziness either. If the wonderful gifts of the gods in the form of human language, creativity, and artistic expression really are as gods-given as many modern and ancient Pagans have believed them to be (and which I would maintain they are), then they should certainly be at least moderately adequate in terms of their abilities to put into some comprehensible form such experiences of the gods themselves. One's mystical experiences need not be of the highest and most sublime ineffable mysteries of existence and the universe to be valid or useful. The beautiful articulation of an experience of the god who is only concerned with one blade of grass, as expressed through poetry or photography or painting, can be infinitely more moving and soul-stirring, not only for the one who experienced it but for others who may understand such an experience through the artistic articulation, than the highest theophanies and epiphanies of transcendent "omni-" deities, precisely because of their rootedness in tangible, sensual, and easily understood and near-universally known objects, images, or language.

Some people, thus, have suggested that there is a contradiction at the very heart of the project of theology, when that term is understood literally, because divine experiences are by nature beyond words, beyond understanding, and beyond "logic." Not only is that not necessarily the case for those working within Pagan theological frameworks, but it also has many further assumptions that the only validity in a particular human endeavor lies in its "accuracy" about its subject. Theology and religion, needless to say, are not science; neither is poetry or any other form of art. All of these endeavors are potentially useful in the overall experiences and lives of humans, and each deserves to be evaluated in its own terms. The rules of science as applied to religion will not produce religious texts or ideas that are satisfying; likewise, if the rules of the dramatic arts are applied to scientific discovery, the resulting play might be entertaining for some people but will probably fail to describe simply and usefully whatever is discovered—if, indeed, the dramatic arts would be able to discover anything at all when they are attempted to be employed rather than scientific methods and techniques. There is nothing wrong with a certain, and even a very high, degree of subjectivity being inherent in theology, since the most basic human experiences of the sacredness of things or the existence of divine realities are subjective in nature. It is, again, only a problem of insistent theologies, which assume they are correct and that no others are valid about the reality of their one-and-only gods, that need to be concerned with the universality and infallible validity of their suggestions. As modern Pagans, there is no need for this in our theology.

In several ways, therefore, the very project of theology within modern Paganism is a queer thing, in the sense of "queer" being somewhat strange or unusual—and this is the case not only for the project of theology as it has been understood in other religions for the past few centuries, but also for many modern Pagans who are adverse to theology and have not separated the activity and the methodology from its products in other religions. Theology deals with those dimensions of human life that are the most queer of all: those divine experiences that tell us that there is more to the world than what is readily apprehended by the senses, even though (from a Pagan viewpoint) being embedded in those very same sensual contexts can give these insights into divine realities.

So, if these suggestions are useful about the nature of theology generally and its role within modern Paganism (and I hope they are!), in the next installment of this column I'll actually deal more directly with "Queer Theology" itself, what it is, and how and why it can be useful. Until early May, then!