When people speak of religion, at least in the Western world, they most often speak of beliefs. The word "religion" in common usage is almost synonymous with doctrines and creeds that express a common belief – or at least an idealized version of the common belief – within a particular religious grouping. Indeed, the most common question someone may ask of a practitioner of a minority religion is: "So what do you people believe, anyway?"

There are some notable exceptions, of course. One is Unitarian Universalism, which is decidedly non-creedal. Some others may be found in the many variants of Neo-Paganism.

In the context of TdB Druidry, it is of paramount importance to remember that not only we are not a creedal religion – but our focus lies in a different direction altogether. Where many other religions speak of belief, we speak of relationships. Where many seek a commonality in thinking – we try to seek a commonality in interacting – which is certainly dependent on thought, but is not defined by any particular kind of thought within reasonable limits.

Where focus is placed on relating, the commonality of language uses becomes paramount. It is useful, therefore, to utilize the same or similar definitions. It does not matter so much just what the particular definitions are, because they are merely a reference frame, important only as an artificial linguistic construct – but without that common reference frame is it all too easy to drift off into the ocean of words, without rudder, anchor, or compass...

With this in mind, there are several terms that we have used in TdB at one time or another that I would like to address:

KINDREDS/KINDRED SPIRITS

These terms denote those entities whom we honor in worship and recognize as being either literally or ritually tied to us by a kinship relationship. This is a catch-all term, basically, and may include one or more of the following, depending on the particular worshipper and tradition:

Ancestors, both of blood, and culture, and spirit; for instance, one may honor one’s personal family dead, or a favorite teacher who has passed on, or an ancient prophet, etc.

Spirits of Nature; these would include Spirits that are specifically connected with our realm of Middle Earth – especially those associated with natural places and phenomena; for instance, a Forest Guardian of a particular stretch of woods, a Spirit of a lake or a River, land Spirits, etc.

Guardian Spirits; many folks believe that each individual has some sort of a guardian personal spirit attached to her – a Guardian Angel, or a Spirit Guide, perhaps, or, in some traditions, a special Ancestor, etc.

Household Spirits; for instance, a House Guardian, or a Hearth Guardian, a Threshold Spirit, in some traditions family Ancestors have this job as well, a household or family Patron or Matron Deity – any of the close, intimate Spirits associated with household and family life and livelihood.

Angels or Archangels;

Totem Spirits;

Deities;

Universal Deity;

Even spirits manifested in this World, such as our physical kin and friends, whom we might choose to honor in ritual.

Sometimes these entities are addressed in a group, such as the Three Kindreds might refer to the Ancestors, the Nature Spirits, and the Gods, or the Pantheon might refer to all Deities an individual, or a group might honor. There are no hard and fast rules in this, though, either in tradition or in modern practice. Historically, different entities might have fulfilled different functions depending on the circumstances, the need, and the time frame – there was never any single unchangeable formula to determine which kind of entity was responsible for what function. Any historical analysis done in modern times, while educational to a point, tends to end up artificial in fine, and any rule or differentiation we might attempts inevitably falls short sooner or later. An Ancestor might fulfill a role of a House Guardian in one tradition, and a Forest Guardian in another; a Land Goddess would have to be considered both a Deity and a Nature Spirit, A God might fulfill several seemingly difficult to reconcile functions, such a both war and fertility, without any regard whatsoever to pin Him into a pigeonhole of our attempted classification. A Pantheon, despite several attempts throughout history to organize and classify the Deities within it, is ultimately no more then a cross-section in time and place of a variety of Gods and Goddesses – their relationships, functions, and even character, often fluid and difficult to discern conclusively: the Norse God Tyr is one example of such, at one time having been the probable chief of several Germanic pantheons, but later relegated to a supporting role to Odin.

Which particular Deities or Spirits one worships, be it the Norse Gods, the Ancestors, Jesus of Nazareth, or the Great Spirit is entirely up to the individual worshipper. But it is worthwhile to note that many teachers and many texts make attempts at classification that while somewhat useful, are also being somewhat limiting. There is a great deal more to the Divine and the Spiritual then we can neatly put away in a labeled box – indeed some might say that the only limit that exist is that of our own perception. Life is neither neat, nor orderly, nor easily classified – and neither is the Divine.

GOD, GODDE, THE DIVINE, POWERS:

These terms have been used to denote the totality of all that is Divine. While not all of us necessarily believe in any sort of a Universal Deity, the monists, pantheists, and monotheists among us have found the terms useful. Though in casual discussion the above three words may be used interchangeably, they do carry slightly different shades of meaning, depending on context.

GOD (as opposed to "a God") is probably the easiest term to use to convey something close to the intended meaning here – and it is useful in that it allows for ease of communication with those who are not on our path. On the other hand, the word has decidedly specifically masculine and even patriarchal connotations which are not always appropriate.

GODDE is a term that is derived by taking the middle form between the words "God" and "Goddess". The meaning here may be understood in one of two ways: either the universal Divinity is gender-less, or the universal Divinity contains both male and female principle.

THE DIVINE is probably the most neutral term. Where both God and Godde implies a personhood, a universal self-aware Deity, The Divine implies no more then the sum total of all that is Divine in the Universe, addressing the issue of neither gender nor self-identity, and leaving the particulars to the individual.

POWERS is a more polytheistically oriented general term to denote that which we honor in worship – and at the same time, as opposed to the terms such as "Kindreds", more neutral. It may imply active manifestations of the Divine, such as natural phenomena, forces and inspiration behind various events, etc., or it may imply various powers attributed to the Divine as a Whole, depending on context. It may also be used to denote both Kindred and non-Kindred spirits indiscriminately.

IMAGE:

In context this term is used in stead of words such as "symbol", etc. As opposed to the common usage of the word "symbol" which usually implies one thing standing in stead of another thing, an image in religious context is understood to share in the essence of both the "imaged" and the "imager".

Consider, for instance, a mental picture you might have of a friend. Most certainly what your friend looks like, and acts, affects the image. But, then, so does your perception, and your ability to create mental images, as well as your emotional state, your knowledge of your friend, and many other things. To you, at any instant in time, the image is your friend for all intents and purposes – you might realize that there is more to your friend then you see, but you can only perceive him from within the perspective of your own limitations. Nevertheless, it is almost certain that your image is not identical to your friend in both scope and kind. To make matters even more complicated, your mental image of this person is almost certain to change in time, both as a result of new knowledge and your own development. Thus, your mental image of your friend partakes both of his nature, and of yours, and it is via this image that you relate to your friend, and with time learn of him and from him.

As a further example, consider the following common mathematical, model. A three-dimensional sphere is intersected by a two-dimensional plane. The intersection of the two objects is a circle. Imagine an observer who exists in two dimensions only, and has no ability to perceive the third dimension. Place this observer on the intersecting plane. While a three-dimensional human will have no difficulty seeing the sphere, the plane, and the circle, and thus will freely admit to their reality, to our two-dimensional critter the sphere is not "real", because it can never be observed, only postulated. To the two-dimensional observer, the circle, which he can perceive, becomes the image of a postulated sphere. Certainly the circle partakes of the nature of the sphere – in fact it is a part of the sphere, and has many of the sphere’s characteristics. On the other hand, it also partakes of the two-dimensional nature of the observer, since the observer would not be able to see it had it been otherwise. Once again, the image partakes both of the nature of the observer and the observed. And once again the observer (the two-dimensional critter) learns of the observed (the three dimensional sphere) using an image (the two-dimensional circle).

An image then may be thought of as a joining boundary between the observer and the observed, partaking of the nature of both, but not identical to either. A qualification of the term would be "mystical image", representing the mystical connotations of the concept in that it makes use of the essential oneness of the Universe, most especially spiritual, but physical as well, that we assume to exist in some fashion or another.

As a final example, consider a painting on glass. Imagine for a moment a painter who worships the Sun. This painter would like to look at the object of his worship in it’s reality, but most of the time he can’t without damaging his eyes. He paints an image of the Sun on glass with translucent paints – a yellow disc with rays radiating from it, perhaps even with a smiling face – and puts this image in the window. With the Sun shining through the window, he can now look upon it, and worship it, without going blind. The painter pours his heart and soul – as well as religious sentiment, knowledge and speculation – into his work, and thus the painting partakes of the nature of the painter. Yet, without the Sun shining behind it, and being the inspiration for it, the painting would hold no meaning, and cannot even be seen, and thus the painting partakes of the nature of the Sun as well.

The painting is, then, an image of the Sun in the sense discussed above. It becomes a joining boundary between the worshipper and the worshipped. In some ways it makes the worship easier, because it allows the worshipper to look at the image of the worshipped. Yet it is a boundary nevertheless, in that it also stands between a man and his God, and if the man forgets the reality of the Sun behind the image, he runs the risk of entering a hall of mirrors and worshipping merely an image of himself.

In one of those recurring ironies of nature, it seems that one gains in intimacy what one loses in perspective – which is usually a good thing, since we assume that a human being cannot know the entirety of the Divine to begin with – just as long as the exchange is remembered. Nevertheless, whether good or not, it seems to be in the nature of things that one cannot gain without paying the price.

An important thing to remember is that images are as "real" as anything else, be they physical or mental. It is also important to remember that from holistic perspective an image may be a complex conglomerate of physical, chronological, emotional, spiritual, and other characteristics that all contribute to it’s character and purpose.

A thought can be thought of as an image. A painting can be thought of as an image. A God can be thought of as an image. A man can be thought of as an image.

As a sideline, it is interesting to note that if both above statements are true, then both Brighid (and by extrapolation, other Deities/Spirits) and humans share the same nature.

It is also interesting to note, that if one contemplates various layers of meaning, both mystical and mundane, of a religious image, it becomes clear after awhile, that the differences between, say, polytheism and pantheism, as well as many others, are likely not reflective of any objective truth, but merely a matter of perspective we choose to take. The concept of an image allows us to recognize that with a little thought even the most ardent theological contradictions can be reconciled – mainly because these contradictions may very well lie not in what we look upon, but in how we look.

Finally, it bears noting and repeating that thinking of something, be it a painting or a Deity, as an "image" in no way detracts from the reality of that something. Or, at least, every image is as real as the one who "images". Often modern Western polytheists are asked if they really think their Gods are "real". From the perspective of above discussion, the answer to that question would be: "They are as real as you and me".

MAGICK

(this part is specifically based on Lisa’s article on Magick which can be found on our web site)

In Neo-Paganism one often finds that folks who think they wish to learn about religion are in truth more interested in learning Magick, or, sometimes, visa versa. The truth is that Magick and religion are not at all the same thing – not in general, and not in TdB context in particular. There is undoubtedly an overlap – especially when folks use different definitions of religion and Magick – but this overlap should not be the cause for confusion of purpose.

Often, also, confusion arises from the use of the term in a metaphoric, rather then a technical, manner. For instance, one might refer to a "magical moment" as a moment of wonder and excitement – which in and of itself does not necessarily have anything to do with Magick as such.

Magick is the deliberate manipulation of the life energy in and around all living things.

Religion, most especially in TdB context, is a process of establishing, maintaining, and strengthening the relationship between ourselves and the Divine.

Magick can, and usually is practiced in religious context because of the common assumption that life energy itself is either of Divine origin or that both this energy and the natural capability to manipulate it come from some sort of a Divine source, and because religion provides an ethical framework within which to operate. Magick can also be practiced (and often is, whether the practitioner is aware of it or not) to enhance religious experience.

Religion can, and sometimes is, practiced in the context of Magick, because a practitioner may need or require the assistance of the Kindreds in accomplishing a particular end.

The fact that Magick and religion are sometimes practiced simultaneously does not change the fact, however, that these are two different areas of human endeavor, perfectly capable of functioning well independently of each other.

Strictly speaking, a person practicing TdB Druidry does not even have to believe in Magick, let along practice it, though there are those who would say that any effective religious ritual involves some deliberate manipulation of life energy of the participants, at least inasmuch as it transports the worshippers to a specifically ritualistic state of mind, and whether the term is used or not, constitutes use of Magick by definition.

At any rate, in TdB context we focus on religion, leaving the practice and learning of Magick to those individuals who choose to take up.

SUGGESTED/RECOMMENDED (Ritual Outline, books, etc...)

There are two terms of importance in this context:

Orthodoxy, meaning "right belief", and
Orthopraxy, meaning "right practice".

For instance, traditional Catholic Christianity focuses on the specific prescribed belief, thus being an orthodox religion, while a traditional ancient Greek cult was likely focused on the correctness of ritual practice, thus being an orthopractic religion.

TdB is neither orthodox nor orthopractic. We do not – and never will – prescribe any particular belief or practice as the only correct way. Indeed, TdB was founded upon the principle of tolerance towards, and validation of, a multiplicity of paths, without any value judgements within the limits of non-harmful intent and practice. The most we can logically do is recommend a particular point of view, or perhaps a spectrum of belief, as a viable option.

On the other hand, a focus on relationships in general, and kinship in particular, does suggest a certain commonality – in communication, and occasionally in ritual practice. This commonality, if used wisely, can be a glue that holds the community together, and as such is an invaluable tool.

Additionally, some common practice is not only traditional, but manifestly spiritually empowering for those who make use of it.

Whether a particular member of TdB chooses to practice her religion as a Solitary, or form a local group is entirely up to the individual – and both paths have their own unique value. And neither of those paths necessarily prevent occasional common-to-TdB practice.