Most of those along a Pagan path seem to show a definite inclination (or evidence of a growing inclination) towards either a more polytheistic or a more monotheistic vision of God. Generally speaking, Witches and especially Wiccans tend to prefer an essentially monotheistic one and regard the myriad of Gods as facets or aspects of one wonderful, genderless, and ultimatly unknowable Deity. Many other Pagan groups (this especially seems to hold true for so-called 'reconstructionist' Pagan faiths) tend to regard the Gods as very independent, separate Deities. In other words, other Pagan religions tend to be more polytheistic while Witchcraft tends to appear polytheistic but actually leans in the direction of monotheism.

But I have found myself in a strange predicament. I am genuinely caught between two visions of divinity. Both polytheism and monotheism hold a ring of truth, and, for me, there is no conflict between them as some may assume there should be. However, this situation raises some questions. How can the two coexist, and what sort of worldview can reconcile such seemingly opposed views?

The awkward, ambiguous region that Witchcraft occupies between a true perspective of Divine plurality and singularity has been criticized by Pagans and non-Pagans alike. It can be said that Witches can switch their terminology to be more sympathetic to the beliefs of those they are communicating with. For instance, in the company of Christians a Witch may choose to refer to divinity as "the God" or "the Goddess," but in the company of other Pagans may choose to say "the Gods." In a number of Wiccan publications, one can find both ways of addressing divinity on the same page! In other words, the general tendency of Witches to be quite mutable concerning the nature of Deity is indicative that a) Witches are indecisive, b) Witches want to please everyone by conforming to their beliefs when it suits us, c) Witches really have not put much thought into the matter, or a combination of all three. The above mentioned reasons may be a factor in determining why Witches in particular are prone to shift between the singular and plural nouns that refer to Deity, but I think the true reason is a valid one based upon the whole of Witchcraft cosmology.

Witchcraft, in its ideal state, is a religion founded upon learning from and loving Nature. We are taught and inspired by Her, our spirits are filled by Her and our minds are challenged by her complexities. Our views of God, then, are derived from the connection we have with Nature and from observing Her ways.

On one hand, to examine Her creations (or perhaps, manifestations) is to be awed by the sheer diversity of existence. The absolutely astounding variety present in Nature (even within members of the same species) leads me to believe that She creates with a loving amusement. Famous artist Pablo Picasso picks up on this also: "God. . . invented the giraffe, the elephant, the cat . . . He has no real style. He just goes on trying things."

I have never found it appropriate to completely disregard the notion that the multitude of Diving presences perceived by ancient and modern polytheists were merely psychological archetypes created by humans for our convenience. This is so because even when I did tend to regard Divinity as an undifferentiated sludge composed of all the sacred archetypes known to man, specific Gods would emerge. As I viewed Their representations in stone, clay, and on paper; as I read Their myths; as I meditated on Their symbolism, They seemed to arise out of that primeval mud and Their features came into focus. The murky slime of uniformity gradually flowed off Them and details were revealed. I have found that the Gods, for me personally, are distinct, unique personalities, textures of the Divine experience. They are vibrant and coursed with meaning. They are not virtually interchangeable names and attributes, each was given the name and visions S/He was because the ancients noted the difference between this Deity from another. If They could all be melded into one near homogeneous New Agey slush, then the need to recognize the name of each, and to encounter each on Their own terms would not have existed at all. They become so much more than simply Their names, cultural heritage, and brief listings of keywords that far too many Witchcraft books are content to leave Them with.

This is a major problem with the approach to the Gods as merely interchangeable aspects of one all-encompassing God. Within this frame of mind, it is perfectly acceptable to spout off numerous Deities' names in spellwork and ritual simply because the one or two sentence description a book supplies is pleasing to the individual. They're all basically the same anyway, right? Wrong. Such an approach to the topic of the Gods is degrading.

For one, when someone accepts the interchangeable aspects theory then it is okay to limit one's knowledge of a Deity to those excruciatingly brief descriptions. Therefore, the practitioner is not encouraged to do further research or soul-searching when they decide to "use" a Deity in a working. Without the impetus to learn accurate information, the amount of bad scholarship and poor knowledge of mythology truly builds up into an embarassing megalith of stupidity. A friend and I were discussing this very problem and how the misinformation has manifested itself in such shameful ways, and imitating a very air-headed New Agey Wiccan, she said, "But Ares isn't a God of warfare! He's the God of sparkly crystal healing!" Unfortunately, she was not exagerrating a great deal with her mockery. At the very least on an intellectual level, the interchangeable aspects approach succeeds only in making the Witchcraft community look pitiful.

Another consideration: Witches often like to claim that we are followers of the Old Ways, modeling ourselves after ancient Paganisms and seeking wisdom from them. However, how well does it speak of us if we cannot honor the Gods in ways conducive to the manner in which the ancients perceived Them? If we ascribe one Deity traits nearly contradictory to what the ancients did, how does this show knowledge of the Old Ways? It actually demonstrates ignorance and a certain disrespect. We claim them as our spiritual ancestors, yet disregard any observations they made concerning the Deities that they had much more of a regular connection with (by means of being in closer contact with Nature) than we do. When one of us asserts that Sekhmet or the Morrigan was a motherly Goddess of compassion, he or she is not only doing those Deities a disservice by misappropriating Them but is delivering a slap in the face to the wisdom of ancient Pagans that we as Neo-Pagans supposedly respect.

We as Pagans (this applies to my fellow Witches in particular) cannot continue to use the "all Goddesses are one Goddess, all Gods are one God" concept to reduce the very diverse presence of the Gods into a barely indiscriminate sludge where the lines that define each Goddess and God are blurred so much that one can virtually exchange one Deity with another.

Despite the uniqueness of everything that exists, the Universe is interconnected in more ways than perceptible to us. Everything is bound to everything else, and these bonds cannot be broken. The simplest of examples is the one often used in Elementary schools: the food chain. When one reaches High School, one gets a less obvious, but equally well demonstration when economic systems are discussed. The Universe is in essence one system unto itself, and some in the past have described it as the "Majestic Clockwork." The Gaia theory, with which many Pagans are familiar, is based on the concept that the interconnectedness displayed by the planet Earth is so that Earth can be viewed as a living entity. Then, of course, there is the realization that everything has been made out of the very same material. We are made of the same stuff as the most distant of stars.

At this point, it seems that I have done nothing but return to the similar position I was at the onset of this essay: confused at the crux of poly- and monotheism. Still the question remains concerning how one can honor the beauty and diversity of each individual Deity while still honoring the Deity that unites everything. However, this position is truly not the same despite how it appears. While I obviously cannot truly explain the nature of God (I'm only human, and besides the fact that it's a Mystery), but I believe I have found an analogy that better explains my own experiences with Deity than the commonly used 'facets of a crystal' version:

Each separate God and Goddess can be viewed as a vital organ. They each have a specific job that gives Them an undeniable importance. They also possess Their own unique characteristics and structure which allow Them to perform Their particular duty, and as such cannot just be exchanged for any other organ (although some may perform similar or complementary functions). One doesn't need a child to tell you that you cannot just switch a heart and a lung and expect things to process correctly. Every God is complex and wonderful in its own right, yet it cannot work alone. They require other members of the pantheon to operate as a system and balance each other out. So it is with bodily organs, each one is necessary for for the body to live. The body is a fascinating, beautiful thing, and we as human beings have not completely figured our own out yet, not to mention those of other creatures! But there is something beyond the body as well which animates it and in certain ways transcends it: the spirit or soul. It is both imbued in the physical as matter is condensed energy, but will also exist when the body dies. The spirit is comparable to the monotheistic aspect in Wicca, that which unifies and animates the whole system of the body.

Ultimately though, despite this long, overly wordy essay and my own theories, the Divine is/are the Divine; beyond human abilites to classify neatly as male or female, singular or plural. It is in this "spirit" that trying to classify creatures (or by extension, anything) as either a sytem composed of many parts which implies an interconnectedness, or as the collection of multiple and separate things which implies that each thing must confront every other thing as alien and external, is futile. Humans cannot truly delineate the traits or nature of Divinity for the same reason that the world cannot be delineated:

There is no word for what the world is in its natural, nonverbal state. For the question "What is it?" is really asking, "In what class is it?" Now it should be obvious that classification is, again, a human invention, and that the natural world is not given to us in a classified form, in cans with labels. When we ask what anything is in its natural state, the only answer can be to point to it directly, suggesting that the questioner observe it with a silent mind.1

If this seems like the easy way out of a difficult question, you may be right, but in truth it is the only answer I can give with any certainty. Logically, I cannot come to a conclusion as to why, for me personally, there is not a strong conflict between the concepts of polytheism and monotheism. The lack of a disharmony is only due to the experiences I have had with the Divine.

Footnotes:
1)Watts, Alan W. Nature, Man and Woman. New York: Vintage Books, 1958. 35.

All contents (unless otherwise noted) are copyright Desirée Isphording 2004 and may not be copied, modified, or distributed without prior express permission.