Are You a Monotheist, or a Fetishistic Henotheist?By: shenpa warrior
Fowler’s Stages of Faith get a lot of attention (both positive and negative) in the bloggernaccle. The first part of the book, BEFORE he outlines the stages of faith, however, are fascinating. For example, Fowler uses the terms polytheist, henotheist, and monotheist to categorize more than religion, including general patterns of identity and faith:
1. Polytheism – These people lack any single center in their lives, or that center is not sufficiently transcendent to be a guide or ordering power. Fowler says that we are probably a lot more polytheistic than we’d like to think. There are two types of polytheists:
- Protean – Avoid long-term identity or commitments. They may experience intense, short-term conversions or faith crises, but they do not last. Commitments move from one center to another.
- Diffuse – Maintain a laid-back commitment without giving the relationship or value “their all.” Neoliberalism / Capitalism makes polytheism seem “normal” by teaching that we should buy everything we want, have sex with everyone we want, experience everything we want. Fowler suggests this is “consumer society’s dominant myth.”
2. Henotheism – These people claim to be loyal to only one god, the “deity of the individual family or tribe,” yet they do not deny that there may be other gods for other people. In this pattern, people significantly invest in their center of value and power. However, this center is not something of “ultimate concern.” In other words, it is an idol. This group elevates a “limited and finite good” to a life-defining value. There are three types of henotheism:
- Causa Sui – Perhaps in response to death anxiety, we seek assurance of immortality. Our “causa sui projects” are used to validate ourselves as people, yet this results in us ultimately worshipping ourselves (or as Fowler puts it, “an altar on which sits the faintly smiling image of our own ego). Wealth, power, and success may also be sought in order for the self to feel good enough.
- Noble – Noble henotheists belong to institutions and causes that elicit their selfless sacrifice and even total commitment. Some members of these institutions actually love the institution itself more than it is worth (think political parties, universities, or even churches), yet that is necessary to sustain the movement. Noble henotheists find their identity in losing themselves in the important—although finite—work.
- Fetishistic – Fetishistic henotheists are very exclusive and have narrow centers of value and power. These groups may turn the avoidance of certain behaviors into virtues to a fetishistic extreme. Workaholics are also fetishistic henotheists, as are anyone in total pursuit of sex or money.
3. Radical Monotheism – These people focus their loyalty in a transcendent center of value and power. However, this center does not arise from their ego, and the center is not an institution or a mortal cause. The “principle of being” and the “source and center of all value and power” are seen as what one is loyal to. Fowler suggests that all major religious traditions have symbolized this transcendent center. To be a monotheist does not require rejecting centers of value and power that are less transcendent or universal, but it requires putting things in order. Although monotheists may have membership in smaller groups with particular “stories” and values, they also identify with a universal community. Their individual tribes are not “revered and served as though they have ultimate value.”
- It is very challenging to find consistent and long-lasting monotheism facilitated by any group or religion. We usually end up confusing representations of the transcendent “with that reality itself.”
- We will always feel pulled to poly- and henotheism. Fowler believes we must work to maintain a form of “radical monotheism” in order to keep our poly- and henotheistic faiths from becoming idolatrous.
On Mormonism and Poly/Heno/Monotheism
How might the church, Mormonism, and individual beliefs or practices within the institution be understood through these categories? What aspects of the church, or individual members, are polytheistic, fetishistically henotheistic, or radically monotheist?