I have spent all afternoon squeezing out a thousand words on the topic of idolatry, a sort of cross between an encyclopedia entry and a summary of four essays appearing in the upcoming issue of The Pomegranate (which is almost finished, thanks be!).
In a paper given during one of the Contemporary Pagan Studies Group’s sessions during the 2009 annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion, Michael York summed up the issue:
The corporeal spirituality that distinguishes Pagan religiosity from the approaches of other religions supports both idolatry or the adoration of physical images and a love of nature that merges into veneration as well as efforts towards ecological restoration as a sacred mandate.
That paper, slightly revised, will appear in the forthcoming issue.
There is a bit of tension between those practitioner-scholars who want to reclaim and redefine the word, in the same manner as “witch,” “pagan,” and so forth.
Others, such as Amy Whitehead, a PhD candidate at The Open University who published on the topic two years ago in Pomegranate, think that trying to reclaim the word is a tactical error—and also that it fails as a discursive category:
[Idolatry is] one of the most loaded and problematic terms in contemporary Western discourses and … is continually understood (and misunderstood) in Abrahamic and modern discursive contexts.
She likes “materiality” as a neutral substitute. “Material sacrality” has also been used. Both differ from any discussion of material culture within a religious tradition, since here we are talking about objects—or nonhuman nature—that serve as “windows” into sacred dimensions.
Speaking of tactical errors, I now think that we on the Contemporary Pagan Studies steering committee made one last year. We were so happy with the lively discussion and attendance at our idolatry session that we scheduled an immediate follow-up—a panel discussion—at this year’s AAR meeting a month ago.
Unfortunately, this year’s session was more uneven. One presenter had to cancel for medical reasons, which further diminished it. Now I think that when you have a great session and want a follow-up, you should wait at least two years for people to reflect and write and build up new material.
Since I have just agreed to serve a term as co-chair of Pagan Studies, I can have more say in how sessions are planned, and hence enthusiasm will be tempered.
I take the point about the term “idolatry2 being loaded, and about alternative like “material sacrality”.
However, do you think that York is right about lumping “adoration of physical images” and “love of nature” together. I tend to get the ideat that they are to be contrasted, and the more nature-oriented religions, such as those of the Germanic, Celtic and Native North American peoples tended to avoid idolatry (with some exceptions). One continuous pagan tradition that avoids idolatry is Shinto. The Germans in particular mocked the Greeks and Romans for their idolatry.
I wonder whether idolatry, as in the ancient Mediterranean, Hinduism, ancient Central America, etc., is linked more to things like worship of the state, the king and the heavens, whereas non-idolatrous paganism is linked more to earthly nature and a less hierarchic society.
I’m only really putting this up for discussion, rather than for careful defence.
Pingback: Idolatry, Material Sacrality, or Something Else? « Aedicula Antinoi: A Small Shrine of Antinous
Interesting discussion! I have elaborated on some ideas here (slightly) over on my blog, because the matter of “idolatry” is especially significant in relation to our cultus of Antinous in all sorts of ways.
Interesting thought, Rombald. Certain the more centralized the culture, the more you are likely to see big statues, etc.
On the other hand, there is some archaeological for image-making among the ancient Germans, I believe, although wood was usually the material of choice, meaning that it would not be as likely to survive as stone or metal.
And the “image” can be a deity-ridden person, as well.