While scooting around the
Internet searching for details on the history of Theopanism (a theological theory under which the
Universe is a constant and eternal process of
emanation from
God), I somehow stumbled on the concept of Polydoxy -- stumbled as in my eyes tripped over it and fell into a
well of searching for more
information on this idea. The well, as these sometimes are, was filled with
books going back several decades, some with multiple authors of different fields penning pieces about the concept.
Now, to the roots. "Poly" being the same is in
polytheism, aka, "many," and "doxy" from
Orthodoxy, the notion of one view being the absolute correct one. There is even a website,
polydoxy.org, which states with fair succinctness the essentials of the term and its intent:
Polydoxy is a religious structure that affirms the basic right of an individual to self-authority or autonomy.
Polydoxy stands in strong contrast to orthodoxy, where only a single set of beliefs is accepted as valid and therefore binding.
Dr. Alvin Reines coined the term, “polydoxy,” in 1965 to define this emergent form of religion. It is based on the recognition that all knowledge is fallible. Various religious opinions, i.e. many beliefs (poly doxa), are recognized as both possible and valid.
To some extent this seems to be just another rewording of concepts of
multiculturalism or
diversity, such that we in
civilized society recognize the rights of others to have differing religious beliefs. But there is a theosophical twist inherent here, notably that while there is (within this "polydox" community) an understanding that there are many religious views, there is still a belief that there is amongst them one "true" orthodoxy. The problem being, we just don't know (and can't know) which one it is!!
Polydoxy arises from within
Judaism (or, at least, its founder was Jewish), so the literature on it seems most concerned with which version of
Judaism is correct, or with the understanding that Judaism writ large is correct, but we can't know which school of it is exactly right. But the applicability of the concept to broader sets of theological viewpoints is nevertheless immediately evident.
To me the most surprising aspect of all this is that even after two decades of studying theology -- laxly for some periods, fervently for others -- I still discover terms in the field completely new to me, but with a substantial body of writing and writers addressing them. I am reminded anew that with so much out there and so much being come up with to keep up with, I ought not be surprised when conversants in the field are unaware of my own peculiar niche of study,
Pandeism.