What Makes Theology Queer?

April 21, 2011 by P. Sufenas Virius Lupus

Continued from Page 1

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.

Article Continued On Next Page

Page: 2 of 3

4/21/2011 4:00:00 AM

Pagan

Queer I Stand

GLBT

Theology

Paganism

more at patheos

Pope Leo Appoints New Auxiliary Bishops in Washington DC

William Hemsworth

Live for the Dash

David Rupert

The Way of Repentance

Coyle Neal

On "moral images"

Dan Peterson

About P. Sufenas Virius Lupus

P. Sufenas Virius Lupus is a metagender and a founding member of the Ekklesía Antínoou (a queer, Graeco-Roman-Egyptian syncretist reconstructionist polytheist religious group dedicated to Antinous, the deified lover of the Roman Emperor Hadrian and other related gods and divine figures). E is a contributing member of Neos Alexandria and a Celtic Reconstructionist pagan in the filidecht and gentlidecht traditions. Follow Lupus' work on the Aedicula Antinoi blog.

Patheos Logo Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos