James Hillman (author of the Soul’s Code) suggests that here in the west we are – every one of us – essentially Christian. By which he means that we have all been culturally indoctrinated into the Christian belief structure and, whether we accept it or not, it provides the fundamental value system upon which we have built our society; if we grew up in the `West’ we can’t avoid being a part of it.
He makes the point to stress that this `exclusive’ cultural basis provides a `justified’ route to War – often in the name of Peace. So it seems that when we can identify a `belief system’ that is constantly operating deep within the subconscious roots of all our minds, it is well worth bringing that `system’ into the light, to examine it and question whether it serves or hinders our purpose.
One aspect of `belief/religion’ that has developed over the generations is the tendency toward leaving behind the notion of many `Gods’ and settling on just the `One God’. This has had enormous repercussions in the way in which society has ordered and directed itself; for many Gods and Goddesses first of all allows the possibility of interpreting the universal principles as being both masculine and feminine. The `One God’ belief has invariably landed us all with the deep insistance that the male principle is the ultimate governor of life. This alone brings `God’ and `his’ existence, as a reflection of reality, into serious question.
But there are a myriad other aspects of Pantheism that offer a richer diversity and flexibility of structure than the `One God’ universe.
Due to our linear perspective on life, we tend to see everything as well defined and separate, but ancient societies would not have viewed life in this way. Thus when we (contemporary humans) talk of the Greek Pantheon of Gods we assign to each god a purpose and definite character that can identify them as separate entities from the other Gods; this was not how they were conceived and perceived by our ancestors, each God or Goddess had a name and a role but both were interchangeable and overlapped with the names and roles of their fellow Gods. They represented principles of life, and the boundaries between those principles were vague and ever changing.
This mirrors Nature’s constant flux and change and lack of definition; everything melds into everything else, nothing is independent of the Web of Life and in this way Pantheists could look to their `Gods’ and know that each was dependent upon the others for their very existence – no God/Goddess could exist alone because it was the relationships that connected them, that gave voice to their purpose, checked and balanced their power and influence and gave them identity as proponents on the stage of life.
Contrast this with the `One God’ doctrine that separates God from Nature, in that God is the overall director of the Natural World, `He’ is not part of the hurly-burly of the constantly moving reality, rather he observes it as an inventor might observe his creation and, in many cases, judge it (and us) to be misguided and need of some fitting punishment or `correction’.
The Pantheist knows his/her Gods are not independent of life, they’re in it, struggling with it (Hephaestos), or playing with it (Hermes) much as we do. There is the understanding that the Gods are representing life and our own purpose within it, and as such, they provide a more attainable and reflective image or symbol of the human experience of life – and here we have one of the greatest and most significant differences between the two belief systems; Theism in some way denies the human experience its rightful place in life, for the human is flawed, born into `original sin’ and constantly straining to achieve an impossible `sinless’ existence (the act of a madman); whereas Pantheism provides us with divine forces we can identify with, for although they transcend human experience (demonstrating an ability for us to do the same), they nonetheless find themselves intrinsically linked to it and as such offer a map for the mind of a real and meaningful experience of life.
So, if I was asked, `What is more useful to humanity as a symbol of its experience of life on earth?’ I would answer Pantheism. And if the purpose of religion is to `enable’ us to navigate our lives according to our true nature, then this begs the question `What are we doing trying to imagine the `One God’ universe when it bears so little relation to our daily lives?’ Surely the multiple representatives of a Pantheon provide a more accurate map?
I’m not suggesting we return to a Pantheist world-view in a religious sense, indeed I would advocate leaving religion completely behind us since it has mainly separated and disorientated us into false identities and spurred us into living lives in which violence and `Death culture’ predominate. Rather I invite us to consider the powerful symbolism of Pantheism, and encourage the questioning of the `Only One God’ cult we have inherited. Only by questioning that which operates so deep within our psyche can we even come to an awareness of its existence, and from that moment of awareness our emancipation can begin as we start to reclaim our true nature, our humanness.