This article's purpose is to try to answer one of the major concerns that Pagans have about Christian Witches. While Pagans will raise some of the same objections as Christians, such as doesn't the Bible forbid Witchcraft or isn't magick contradictory to a Christian worldview, it seems that over and over again Pagan Witches return to one major objection.

This is the idea that Witchcraft is steeped in a Polytheistic ethos and Christians are required to worship only one God. When Pagans say that the idea of a Christian Witch is an oxymoron, or that Christianity and Paganism have nothing in common, it is usually this difference between Pagans and Witches that they are thinking about.

The excellent book "Drawing Down the Moon" by Margot Adler has an extended foundational discussion about the importance of the Polytheistic paradigm as necessary to a Neo-Pagan worldview and how it is utterly a different and healthier way of thinking of and relating to the Divine than the Judeo-Christian idea of "Monotheism". While not all Pagans are as lucid in their thinking about this issue as Adler, many seem to share this view almost at an instinctual level.

Then of course is the same assumption we examined in the last article that Witchcraft is and only is the Neo-Pagan religion of Wicca. I don't wish to cover the same ground here that one can be a Witch and not be Wiccan, for I think that is beside the point. The ethos that the Craft requires a Polytheistic worldview runs deeper than the particulars of Wicca and many Pagan Witches might agree that a Witch doesn't have to be Wiccan, but balk at the idea that a Witch doesn't have to be Polytheistic.

I don't wish to simply dismiss this concern and then present arguments why the Craft can be practiced in a Monotheistic spiritual path. I think this would be a mistake, for it seems to me that the concern that Pagans have here is more than valid and is completely legitimate. If one understands there to be only two ways of answering the question of the unity vs. plurality of the Divine as is done in "Drawing Down the Moon", then it does seem that the ethos of the Craft is incompatible with "Monotheism".

"Monotheism" requires a "true" religion with all others being false, while the Craft is deeply rooted in the idea of many paths, many truths, and validity in diversity. This sensibility isn't just a "live and let live" attitude about how others practice their spiritual journey, it is a vital part of how the individual Witch understands her spiritual journey. A main aspect of the Craft is the emphasis on creativity, an intuitive well spring of personal spiritual and magickal development that comes from within the particular Witch. A Witch doesn't ask the question, "How does this practice or symbol or idea fit in with the true faith?" Rather the Witch asks the question, "Does this practice or symbol or idea reflect my personal experience of my spiritual journey?" This emphasis or rootedness in creativity seems incompatible with the "one true faith" ethos of "Monotheism".

Polytheism presents an idea of the Divine as pluralistic and diverse, in many different yet valid expressions. Instead of arguing over whether the "one true God" is a loving, caring and maternal figure or a quick tempered, jealous and demanding patriarchal figure, the Polytheist responds that the Divine includes both Isis and Zeus. A devotion to Isis doesn't negate a devotion to Zeus, and the particular Witch can move from one devotion to another as her spiritual needs dictate!

So, if I am going to say that all this Witchly concern against "Monotheism" is valid, then how do I solve the problem of Christian Witches whose faith system "requires" them to be "Monotheist"?

The answer is simple. We are not dealing with a bipolar dichotomy here! As is so often the case, there are more than two options! There is at least a third position that once can take on the issue of the unity/plurality of the Divine, unfortunately it too goes by the name of Monotheism! Thus what often happens is that Christian Witches agree that Christianity is Monotheistic, but they don't mean by the term what Pagans understand "Monotheism" to be and reject! This is especially true for those Pagans who were Christians, for it is almost universal that the kind of Christianity they embraced temporarily was dominated by the "only one true God" form of "Monotheism".

To help this discussion work better I am going to invent new terms for the two kinds of Monotheism, for I think this will help me us in exploring these three different ways of dealing with the unity/plurality issue in understanding the Divine. The kind of "Monotheism" that Adler describes and rejects I will call "Singulartheism". The third option that also is called Monotheism I will call "Universaltheism". I will continue to use the term Polytheism also.

Polytheism understands that the Divine is primarily pluralistic. The Divine can be thought of as a substance that has the nature of Divinity, this Divine nature is expressed in many and varied distinct forms. These are called Gods and Goddesses. By definition the particular Gods and Goddesses are limited. They are finite and definite. They have names by which one can tell them apart. Odin is not Frigga, so if you want to connect to Odin you need to invoke Odin. A Divine encounter with Odin will be very different than a Divine encounter with Frigga.

These distinct expressions of the Divine may not, however, actually be "objective" reality about the Divine, but may instead only be our corporate "subjective" apprehension of the Divine. In other words the Divine isn't Isis, Zeus, Demeter, Brigit and Thor in and of itself, but is Isis, Zeus, Demeter, Brigit and Thor in our human connections to the Divine. This doesn't mean Isis et. al. are not "real", is just means that their reality is located in the nexus of the spiritual connection of the Human with the Divine. Thus the "myths" of the Gods are not literalistic truths, but are deeper truths about the nature of reality expressed in metaphorical story form.

However, not all Polytheists would hold this metaphorical understanding of the Gods. Many would instead opt for a literalistic viewpoint where the plurality of the Gods is an objective reality apart from the Human apprehension of it. It is my belief that originally the resurgence of Neo-Pagan Polytheism primarily embraced a metaphorical viewpoint, but that as the faith spreads more and more are thinking in literalistic terms. Thus to these folk the myths and stories of the Gods are true accounts of supernatural happenings.

Singulartheism, in my understanding, is actually very similar to a literalistic Polytheism. It too understands that the Divine is a substance that has the nature of Divinity and is expressed in an objective literalistic definite form whose stories are true accounts of supernatural happenings. But it asserts that Divinity is expressed not in many diverse forms and manifestations, but only in "one true" single one. All other competing candidates for Divine manifestations are lies, deceptions, falsehoods and thus are evil. It is not just Polytheists with their many manifestations that are believing in "false gods" according to Singulartheism. Other Singulartheists whose definite ideas about the single "God" are different are also connecting to "a false god" and their religion is evil.

The Polytheist looks at the Singulartheist and responds, "I don't see why you think there would be only one God?"

The Singulartheist answers, "Because there is only one true single God and the rest are lies."

It seems almost necessary in Singulartheism to have a Devil, a non-Divine spiritual being that is powerful enough and hateful enough to the "one true" single God to create the lies, falsehoods, and deceptions that would cause people to think there are many Gods or confuse a lie with the "one true" single God. The Devil tends to operate as an opposite Divine manifestation from the "one true" single God, but the Singulartheist continues to insist that the Devil is not a true God but a "false" God.

Thus the Singulartheist may actually agree with the literalistic Polytheist that Isis et. al. are real objective beings. The Singulartheist however will assert, at times with bloodthirstiness, that these are demons masquerading as Gods and are evil through and through in rebellion against the "one true" single God.

Universaltheism is quite different than Singulartheism. In fact it is very similar to Metaphorical Polytheism. For the Universaltheist to say that God is "One" is not to say that God is "single", but to emphasize that more important than any plurality or diversity in our apprehension of the Divine is the reality that all these apprehensions are of "One" and the same Divine. Rather than undercutting other diverse apprehension of the Divine, as Singulartheism does, Universaltheism goes even further than Polytheism in affirming the varied and diverse apprehensions by constantly reminding us that all divinity is One divinity.

If a Polytheist said to a Universaltheist, "Why can't there be other Gods besides your One God?", the Universaltheist would probably reply, "If there were other Gods besides God they all would be manifestations of a deeper and truer divinity which is what I would be thinking of when I said "God" and they would all be different valid apprehensions we have of the same God. All of us are children of One God and our differences are less important than the unity we all have in the same Divine Parent, even if our understandings of the Divine are varied and diverse."

While Singulartheism tends to say that among all the Gods a single God is the only true God and the rest are lies, Universaltheism would be more comfortable saying that the terms "the Gods" and "God" are just two different ways of speaking about the same reality. The One God is simply a more elevated way of thinking about the Gods, a more universal way.

Because of this, Universaltheism tends to shy away from having a name for the Divine and instead uses the general term for a Divine manifestation and just capitalizes it to indicate they mean the Ultimate Divine reality as a whole rather than a single aspect of divinity. However, for Universaltheists today they face the problem that for Singulartheists the term "God" has come to operate as a "name" for the one true God among many false Gods. Also it is a masculine term and is limited in that way.

Universaltheists have not found a solution to this problem. Among themselves as they discourse it is clearly understood that the term "God" in an inclusive and unlimited term. They also tend to not use a personal pronoun for God anymore but tend to repeat "God" instead of saying "He" or "Him", even when that leads to very convoluted English such as "So God created Human Beings in the likeness of God and when God did that God said to God's self that it was very good."

We should also note here that our discussion in "What is a Christian Witch" about Nature Mysticism explained the difference between a Supernaturalist view of the Divine and a Panentheistic view. I would like to add here that Singulartheism tends towards Supernaturalism, while Universaltheism tends to embrace Panentheism

Hopefully these explorations of the three different ways one can understand the nature of the Divine in unity/plurality terms has helped explain how Christian Witches can fully embrace the creativity aspect of the Craft with its ethos of validity in diversity while still embracing a Christian Monotheism, for their Monotheism is not of the Singulartheistic kind, but is a Universaltheism. Some Christian Witches might actually be comfortable in using diverse names for the Divine that they understand as the ONE that is MANY. Others may simply try to avoid such issues, while still affirming the diversity in our apprehension of the Divine.

Now I would like to share an article I wrote a while back in which I, as a Christian Witch, explore further the issues of the One and the Many from a Universaltheistic perspective and attempt to use a Process methodology to make sense of a specific Christian doctrine about the Divine being One and Many, the idea of the Trinity.

Archetypes and Avatars

I call the Divine the One who is Many. This One is not a being among beings, not a thing among things, but the Ground of Being, that is the Being that is in all things, the Life that is in all life, the Wisdom that is in all wisdom, the Consciousness that is in all consciousness, the Reason that is in all reason.

I call this One the Ultimate and I understand that all the joy, love, pleasure, delight, purpose and meaning that I experience in relationship with the world around me is in truth, ultimately, an experience of the Ultimate. It is like the Ultimate is the sweet milk I drink, but I drink it through the straw of the particulars of the world. When I smell a rose, the delight I know in the scent of the rose is actually delighting in the Ultimate and the rose is a "straw".

I believe that the Ultimate brings all the worlds into being, calling them to the journey of becoming. I have the opinion that the world as we know had a beginning when the Ultimate began this process, but that opinion is secondary to my experience that the becoming of the worlds, from the vast galaxies down to the quantum indetermination of photons and mesons and quarks, is an ongoing process of creation wherein the Ultimate gifts the creation with existence and with freedom, not separate and independent from the ultimate existence and freedom of the Ultimate, but connected and grounded in the Ultimate and yet autonomous.

I understand that in a sense everything else that is, is an "idea" that the Ultimate is having, or perhaps more accurately an association and collection and community of "ideas" that the Ultimate is having, although I don't understand the Ultimate to be within and limited by time, but understand time itself to be part of the complex of "ideas" that the Ultimate has. The "ideas" that the Ultimate has are completely and totally grounded in the Ultimate in all their being, but they truly do exist and are real and are free and thus may be in relationship not only with one another, but with the Ultimate too.

If I were to put a "name" of the motivation for the Ultimate calling the worlds into being, the name would be Love. The Ultimate overflows with love and out of this love calls all things into existence so the Ultimate can love all things and call all things to join in love. To love means to delight in, to enjoy, to care and to seek union with what is loved. I believe this love originates within the Ultimate and "begins" as the Ultimate loves the Ultimate.

For me this is the beginning of understanding the One as Many. The One is just not One but is Two. As the Ultimate loves the Ultimate the Ultimate which is One becomes Two, becomes the One loving and the One loved; becomes the Lover and the Beloved. This becoming, though, I don't understand as ever having a time that it wasn't so. I understand the Ultimate always to be both the One loving and the One loved and thus to be Two.

Thus the Ultimate knows the Ultimate as "I" and as "Thou". The Ultimate is the great "I Am" and is the great "Thou Art." But I understand that the One that is Many goes beyond being Two and becomes Three, for I understand the Love, that the Ultimate knows in relationship with the Ultimate, is also the Ultimate as process, the Ultimate as dynamic, the Ultimate as verb, the Ultimate as Spirit. And again I don't understand this "becoming" of the Ultimate as Spirit as ever having a time that it wasn't so, but that Spirit has always been the process as the Ultimate is the One loving, the One loved, the Loving and thus Three.

Thus I affirm that the Ultimate is not a generalized source of being, but is ultimately a relationship of persons, a community of love. As I said above, it is out of this love that the Ultimate gifts the worlds into existence that they too may join in the Divine dance of love and community, to know and be in relationship as lover and beloved.

Thus the Ultimate is not simply the Creating One, but is the Holy Parent of all that is, both Father and Mother, both the One who calls the worlds into existence by HIS word and the One who births the worlds into existence from HER being. I don't think that this reality that the Ultimate is both Father and Mother, both Masculine and Feminine is neatly divided so that the Ultimate as "I" and the "Lover" is one gender and the Ultimate as "Thou" and the "Beloved" is the other. I think it is more fluid. The Ultimate, as "I", is the "Goddess" to the "God" of the Ultimate as "Thou", but also the Ultimate, as "I", is the "God" to the "Goddess" of the Ultimate as "Thou" and both can be "Goddess" to "Goddess" and "God" to "God".

But also the Ultimate as "I" is the source of the Ultimate as "Thou" and so I also understand the Ultimate as "I" to be the Holy Parent to the Ultimate as "Thou" who thus is also the Ultimate as Child.

Now this complexity of the One being Many, as being Three, as being Masculine and Feminine, and as being Parent and Child, is played out in relationship with the worlds, the Ultimate as Spirit is Love, Joy, Wisdom, Understanding, Hope, Justice and Liberty, as one voice in my sacred Tradition says, "The Seven Spirits of God". In this relationship the One has with the worlds, the worlds know the One not only as One but as Many, and the ways known are vast and divergent as different aspects of the One that is Many are known.

We Human beings carry in our being the ground of being, we carry in our subconscious the Ultimate consciousness and thus we carry in our collective unconsciousness images of the Ultimate, often the Ultimate as the Many. These various images are Archetypes and the basis of the myths of the Gods and Goddesses. The Gods and Goddesses are not objective descriptions of a metaphysical pantheon, but are subjective experiences of the Many that is One that come out of our collective unconscious and operate like windows into the house of the Divine.

Thus the Gods and Goddesses do not exist apart from and independent of our mythologizing the aspects of the Divine we find in our souls. My experience is that some myths of the Gods and Goddesses are more powerful and vital in connecting some to the One that is Many, of which they are reflections, then others. It is also my experience that some myths become "out of balance" and thus become distorted.

It is also my experience that in the great dance between the Divine and the Divine's Human children that some individuals have a greater awareness and connection of Spirit than others and some of these individuals have such powerful connections that their connection of Spirit becomes a conduit which others can plug into and experience also, thus these individuals operate as Avatars sweeping people up into their relationship with the Ultimate.

It is my existential experience and joyful affirmation that Jesus of Nazareth is the ultimate Avatar of the Ultimate and I know the Ultimate as "Thou" by knowing Jesus as "Thou". In Jesus I find humanity fully realized and the Ultimate fully in union with humanity so that I understand the Ultimate as one and the same as the person Jesus. Others who know the Ultimate in different perceptions may not realize their knowing the Ultimate in terms of Jesus but instead realize it in other Archetypes or Avatars, but my experience of Spirit understands no experience of Spirit to ever be other than the Spirit of Jesus and so I affirm that all connection in Spirit is the same connection I know as connection in the Spirit of Jesus.

---

---

---

---