A very common question made by those new to Hellenismos is, “Are patron deities acceptable, and do I have to honor the whole Greek pantheon?” Concerning honoring the whole pantheon, the simple answer is yes. Patron deities are not as easy, and depend on what we are actually discussing. Patron deities are Gods or Spirits that act as guardians or watchers for a person, place, or thing. Within Ancient Greece, patron deities took many forms, from the guardians of cities (Athena being the patron of Athens) to tutelary spirits acting as guides (Socrates is said to have had a personal daimon who guided his contemplation). These concepts are very similar to the Ishta-deva in Hinduism and Buddhism, described as “most beloved divinity” or “meditational deity” respectively. These concepts are very different from the concept of patrons in most of the modern Neopagan movement.

The Neopagan concept of Patron Deities evolved out of the solitary Wiccan practice (and the practice of some covens) to call the God and Goddess of Wicca by mythological names. This is done so that individuals can more easily identify with the Wiccan God and Goddess. This practice also combines with transpersonal psychology and the use of archetypes, inspired by Carl Jung. This concept, of course, does not represent a true Patron relationship from a historical perspective, from the perspective of many surviving ethnic traditions, or even from the perspective of some Abrahamic religions who believe in guardian angels and/or patron saints. Patron deities, in the Neopagan sense, are often selected based on a personal value placed on a divinity’s perceived traits and characteristics, rather then any religious or theological concepts sourced from the actual religions they are co-opted from.

Within Hellenismos, the context of appropriate patron relationships are varied, but clearly defined, and there are forms of patron veneration that cross the line. Forms of objectionable veneration include:

• A personal “patron” relationship that breaks appropriate boundaries and bonds with the Gods, or is outside of historical syncretism,
• An exclusive or over-emphasized worship, which borders on or causes the ignoring of the complete pantheon, and
• An emphasis on the value of the traits and characteristics of one deity over another.

In discussing keeping appropriate boundaries and historical syncretism, we are talking about a prohibition of creating so-called personal pantheons, or perceived special callings. We see this in the modern Neopagan movement, but it is not appropriate within Hellenismos or many other Reconstructionist religions. Do not take this the wrong way. This is not an absolute declaration that one cannot worship outside the Greek pantheon under any circumstance; it is about keeping within Hellenic character, thought, and ethics.

The exclusive or over-emphasis of a deity (or several deities) also breaks these boundaries by causing one to either ignore or not provide proper honor to the pantheon. There will be those who engage in rhetorical sleight-of-hand, and ambiguities of language, in order to support the fallacy that it was an accepted practice to over-emphasis a deity, specifically if a person was acting as a priest or oracle. This is a complete distortion of fact, based more on what they want to believe rather than it being an actuality. Of course there were household Gods, Gods associated with certain guilds and organizations, Gods associated with professions, individuals in the office of priest to specific Gods, and many more examples of patron deities, but none of these examples rise to the level of distorting the pantheon, over-emphasizing worship, or excluding deities from veneration. You may hear some Neopagans state they only worship Hermes and Hekate (as an example) but do not feel “called to worship” by the others; this is considered objectionable veneration within the Hellenic tradition.

The emphasis of the traits and characteristics of one deity (or several) is an example of the use of transpersonal psychology and archetypes by Neopagans, and again causes a breakdown of what could be considered appropriate boundaries. The idea that the Gods are mere thought-forms or innate psychological imagery, from a Hellenic perspective, is a form of atheism. There is, of course, no single doctrinal perception of the Gods required to be a Hellenist, but the idea that the Gods are actual goes without question. The Gods perform perfectly. They are not different faces of one being, cannot be substituted, do not cease to be, and cannot be trounced by the wants, expectations, and desires of impious mortals.

Therefore, what is appropriate is honoring the whole pantheon in an appropriate context. Some uneducated persons, unfamiliar with Hellenismos, may perceive some Gods to be over-emphasized, but this is a result of proper context. Hestia, Zeus, the Agathos Daimon, Apollo, Herakles, Hekate, and others may seem to be over-emphasized in household practice of the religion. A businessperson may seemingly over-emphasize Hermes, while a thespian may show a very strong and devout “relationship” with Dionysus. Yet, patron relationships with deities are never ones that should be having us ignore the other Gods. How can we exist in harmony with the Gods if we are ignoring many of them? Within Hellenismos, a deity’s patron relationship with a person, place, or thing is never a call to have no other Gods before them, and it is never appropriate to ignore selectively, impiously, and hubristically the Gods.

_{»crosslinked«}

Tags: Ancient Greece, Greek pantheon, Hellenismos, Objectionable Veneration, Patron deities