When you hear the word “animism,” what comes across your mind?
In school, when I first learned about animism in world history, I had always thought animists “worshiped” nature spirits like a Christian or Muslim would worship God. I thought that animists praying to a spirit of an animal or tree or rock was the same as worshiping that spirit in order to gain its favor. In other words, I thought animists considered every spirit worthy of worship and were committed to adore and give themselves completely over to every spirit they encountered in nature.
Of course, in a public school history class, if you remembered the word “animism” and selected the correct multiple-choice option that vaguely resembled “something-something nature spirits,” that was good enough and you could move on with your life.
Not surprisingly, this perception of animism is naïve and lacking any nuance. It is also probably quite prominent in the minds of many in the West.
Priming Christian discussion of Animism
From a Christian perspective, we would expect our universe to have a rich, multifaceted spiritual reality underlying what we see and experience. The Bible not only speaks of disembodied spirits (elohim) and a Divine Council that was designed to oversee the affairs of the nations (see Deuteronomy 32:8-9 from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint) but also hints that, regardless of its often hyperbolic or metaphoric language, one might surmise from the Bible a spiritual depth within natural substances and phenomena that are more than just “stuff.” Consider Job 12:1-12, Isaiah 55:12, Luke 19:40 and Habakkuk 2:11.
The Bible especially invites us to think deeper about the spiritual status of animals. For instance, the Bible says that both animals and humans possess a “soul.” The Hebrew word for “soul” or “life” is nephesh. Humans are said to have a nephesh hayyah (“… the man became a living creature.”) in Genesis 2:7; animals also possess nismet hayyah in Genesis 1:30 (“… everything that moves upon the earth in which there is life…”). In Genesis 7:20-21, the “breath of life” (nismet haya) is applied to both mankind and animals using one phrase.
Animals also possess a ruach, Hebrew for “spirit” or “soul,” like humans do. 1 Samuel 1:15 and Job 7:11 describe a human’s ruach; then you flip to Ecclesiastes 3:21 and 12:7 and you see that animals also have a ruach. In fact, one of the reasons Jonah the prophet is sent to Ninevah by God is because of the innocents who live there, including the animals (Jonah 4:11).
Animism: Outdated Terminology
For more information on this section, check out these citations:
“Animism and Totemism.” (In), Insoll, T. (ed.). Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1004-1016.
Found on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/12839544/2011_Animism_and_Totemism_In_Insoll_T_ed_Oxford_Handbook_of_the_Archaeology_of_Ritual_and_Religion_Oxford_Oxford_University_Press_pp_1004_1016
Edward B. Tylor in the early 1900s is credited for developing the term “animism” as a way to understand religion, not “a” religion (as I understood it as a child). Tylor himself expressed animism as the ‘primordial mistake of attributing life, soul, or spirit to inanimate objects.’ This framework lasts even to today; the Oxford Handy Dictionary (1986) says that animism is attributing ‘living soul to inanimate objects and natural phenomena.’ (Insoll, p. 1005).
However, within academia, there has been a move away from this kind of categorization around the world as ethnographers, anthropologists and archaeologists learn more about the intricacies of indigenous peoples’ worldviews. To quote Insoll, using the term has become “untenable” and “irrelevant to archaeology,” though it does still appear in the literature. Modern professionals using the term will now invariably define exactly what they mean within their publication; ie, one might say a particular tribes’ belief system is “animistic” and then go on to define exactly what they mean by the term.
To quote Insoll, using the term [animism] has become “untenable” and “irrelevant to archaeology,” though it does still appear in the literature.
Often, authors will use other words that more accurately describe a particular belief. For instance, if a tribe uses “personification” of trees, one might simply use the term personification rather than saying the tribe ascribes to “animism.” Scholars also incorporate unique tribal vernacular rather than inventing a Western label for a belief system; ie, someone writing about the Nigerian Yoruba’s beliefs might use the word Ase, their own word, to describe their own belief system.
(Sidebar: I believe this is a fantastic convention! If you study a language and a word just doesn’t translate easily to your own, just incorporate the word into your own usage for greater accuracy when expressing that idea.)
In other words, there is no useful, widely accepted definition for animism in modern academia.
However, for the purposes of this entry, the use of the term is helpful; therefore, knowing the baggage and drawbacks of the term, I will proceed using the monikers “animism” or “animists” occasionally, following the convention of qualifying the term wherever necessary.
Specific Beliefs Within “Animistic” Societies
For more information on this section, check out these citations:
D.S. Whitley (2014), “Hunter-Gatherer Religion and Ritual.” (In), Cummings, V., Jordan, P., Zvelebil, M. (ed.). Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1221-1242.
Found on Academia.edu: https://www.academia.edu/14439718/2014_Future_directions_in_hunter_gatherer_research_hunter_gatherer_religion_and_ritual_In_Oxford_Handbook_of_the_Archaeology_and_Anthropology_of_Hunter_Gatherers_V_Cummings_P_Jordan_and_M_Zvelebil_eds_pp_1221_1242_Oxford_University_Press_Oxford
2011. “Ancestor Cults”. (In), Insoll, T. (ed.). Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology of Ritual and Religion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1043-1058
Found on Academia.edu (Insoll’s page; scroll to find this entry):
https://exeter.academia.edu/TimothyInsoll/Papers
2013. E.J. Michael Witzel. The Origins of the World’s Mythologies.
Can access online at Oxford Academic:
https://academic.oup.com/book/33090
Though the term is all but dead within archaeological discourse, it is important for Christians to think through what hunter-gatherer societies believe not just when it comes to missions but, more to the point of this blog, the origin of religion in human prehistory.
Traditionally, the beliefs of various tribes that used to be considered “animistic” include several characteristics that we can investigate and discuss. Consider this quote from David Whitley’s article “Hunter-Gatherer Religion and Ritual”:
“… hunter-gatherer religions include animistic beliefs: they typically hold that the world is ensouled, or numinous. Supernatural agents may then appear as natural phenomena (such as specific rocks or lightning), as well as animal spirits or ghosts/ancestors. But all of these are personified in the sense that they always think and act like humans, regardless of name and outward form [Barrett 2004; Elkin 1964, 155; Forde 1931, 182]. Further, because animals especially are perceived to be like humans spiritually – in Native America animals are widely conceptualized as ‘non-human people’ – special social and religious relationships are believed to exist between individuals and groups of humans, and certain animal species and animal spirits. These range from an individual’s animal spirit helper or tutelary to a clan’s or moiety’s mythic ancestor or animal totem.”
Whitley, p. 1222
Notice the bolded portions:
- The world is ensouled or numinous.
- Supernatural agents exist
- Supernatural agents may appear as natural phenomena
- Supernatural agents may appear animal spirits or ghosts/ancestors
- Supernatural agents are personified
- Animals are perceived to be “like humans”
- Animals often have special social and religious relationships with human individuals and groups
- Animals may operate as helpers
- Animals may serve as mythic ancestors
- Animals may serve as a “totem” (ie, clan/tribe emblem or aspirational model)
Are “Animistic” Beliefs Compatible with Christianity?
Supernatural Entities in “Animism” and Christianity
From a Christian perspective, one might take these hallmarks or attributes of what a belief system that used to be described as “animistic” one at a time; then, one could compare and contrast them with (a) ancient Jewish beliefs found in the Old Testament (some of which we’ve alluded to earlier) and (b) the writings of the New Testament. In this way one could make decisions about how to think about each of these things in turn:
- Supernatural agents exist
- This is, of course, a prominent agreement that the OT would have with H-G (hunter-gatherer) “animists.” There are myriad examples of cherubim, seraphim, angels, the heavenly host, demons, etc.
- Supernatural agents may appear as natural phenomena and are personified
- In Habakkuk 3:4-5, in the original Hebrew, we see the names of three Canaanite deities, two of which are translated as Disease/Pestilence and Pestilence/Plague (depending on the English version you have).
- In v. 4, חֶבְי֥וֹן (Hebyon) is mentioned, along with דָּ֑בֶר (daber) and רֶ֖שֶׁף (resep) in v. 5.
- The personification of these Canaanite deities as natural phenomena was so strong that now, thousands of years later, English translations have all but obscured the original polemic of the ancient Hebrew author saying how weak and subservient these “powerful” gods were compared with Yahweh going out “at His feet.”
- Similarly, consider the parting of the Red Sea, done by a “strong east wind” (Exodus 14:21-22). Whether God was acting directly or through an intermediary being, an “animist” might hear this story and correctly connect the natural phenomena with the activity of a supernatural agent (whether God or angel).
- In Habakkuk 3:4-5, in the original Hebrew, we see the names of three Canaanite deities, two of which are translated as Disease/Pestilence and Pestilence/Plague (depending on the English version you have).
- Supernatural agents may appear as animal spirits or ghosts/ancestors
- Consider 1 Samuel 28:13, where the witch of Endor summons Samuel from Sheol for King Saul toward the end of his life/reign. Saul asks the conjurer what she sees and she says an “elohim.” As we’ve seen before, elohim is an ontological descriptor for spiritual beings; their proper place is in the spirit realm. The fact that Samuel shows up in the physical realm gives us Biblical precedence for this phenomena.
- In many visions throughout Ezekiel and Daniel, spiritual beings often resemble animals. This also provides Biblical precedent for this prominent H-G belief.
- Animals as emblems, helpers, having special relationships with humans or groups of humans
- In Christian circles, how many times have people claimed to have been visited, protected, or guided by angels? Millions of testimonies throughout history?
- Consider how God himself, the Holy Spirit, appears as a dove alighting from heaven at Jesus’ baptism. (Matthew 3:16-17)
- The nachash (“serpent”/”shining one”/”diviner”) in the garden of Eden, though clearly a divine entity (2 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Thessalonians 3:5; Revelation 12:9), is forever encapsulated in our consciousnesses as a snake.
Nuanced Beliefs About the Natural World in “Animism” and Christianity
The other items on Whitley’s list require a bit more nuance. However, these are not necessarily incompatible with Biblical Christianity.
- The world is ensouled or numinous
- Many Western Christians hold to the belief that God is transcendent, independent of the universe, and chooses to enter his creation at will, though not at all a part of it (with the exception of things like the humanity of Christ and visitations such as with Abraham, Samuel, etc.).
- However, this “dualistic theism” model is not the only Biblical option for describing “how” God exists.
- For example, many denominations (Orthodox Churches, for instance) opt for describing the relationship between God and his universe as “Panentheistic“.
- Inspiring Philosophy, a Christian YouTube channel, suggests a model called “Palamite (Weak) Panentheism,” where God and creation are ontologically separate, but creation emerges from and is wholly dependent on God.
- Holding to this view means that the world does indeed have some spiritual depth, whether a rock or a tree or animals.
- From this perspective, discussions between a Western Christian and an “animist” H-G ought to be fascinating!
- Animals are perceived “like humans”
- As I have already highlighted above, it is important for Christians to understand the Hebrew relationship between our naphesh / ruach / nismet haya and those of animals.
- The main thing that delineates humanity from the rest of the animal kingdom is the image of God.
- This is not a set of properties but rather an ontological designation.
- By the sheer fact of our humanity we are entrusted with the role of “imaging” (or representing) God in a very concrete way here on Earth.
- As many H-G cultures believe, Christians are given dominion over the Earth, including animals, and we are to rule like Christ; animals are to be respected, cherished, and protected just as Christ, the good shepherd, would.
- In light of this understanding, believing that there is a moral imperative surrounding the good treatment of animals by asking them permission to hunt, kill, and eat their meat or thanking them when we take something from them (like honey from a beehive) would not conflict with Christian mores or ethics.
- Animals as “totems”
- The term “totem” comes from the Ojibwa expression ototeman, which roughly translates, “He(she) is a relative of mine”. This term, like animism, is “infrequently encountered in anthropology.” (Insoll, p. 1007).
- Winfried Corduon, in In the Beginning God, clarifies totemism for us. He says, “In many parts of the world, [subgroups, classes, or clans of larger populations] are associated with an animal or a plant. In this case we may call this institution totemism, and the item with which a subgroup is associated is known as their totem.” (p. 121)
- As a practical consideration, totemism presumably “began as a way of preventing the genetic consequences of inbreeding and incest” and was also “a method of regulating the food supply.” Tribes would develop marriage conventions (exogamy) to ensure various tribes, with subgroups delineated by their totem, would ensure offspring that were free of genetic deformities. (p. 123)
- This is also important to note: According to what data we have, “totem beings are not gods and in most cases do not receive veneration. Sometimes the totem is considered to be a living spirit, but whether it receives attention and how depends on specific cases.” (p. 132)
- From a Biblical perspective, nations, and even Israel, were often referred to by God as animals.
- Ezekiel 17:2-17 speaks of Babylon and Egypt as eagles.
- Egypt is called a great serpent/crocodile in Ezekiel 29:2-4.
- Daniel 7 features an extended prophecy regarding kingdoms; each of the four kingdoms are represented as an animal: an eagle, a bear, a leopard, and a fourth monstrosity.
- The tribe of Judah is called a lion in Numbers 24:5-9.
- While these may not be completely analogous to “totemism,” it is reasonable for a Christian to relate to a H-G who holds to these beliefs based on the Bible.
- Animals as mythic ancestors
- The “worship,” as a modern Westerner understands it, of ancestors does not emerge in the archaeological record does not emerge until Egypt, c. 3100 BC, or Mesopotamia, c. 2500 BC.
- What we find in H-G societies might be best described as “ancestor veneration” (Insoll, p. 1043)
- In The Origins of the World’s Mythologies (p. 424), Witzel says, animals becoming mythical ancestors as a belief doesn’t emerge in human prehistory until what he describes as the “Laurasian” mythological genesis (around 40,000 years ago) (p. 416).
- The ethnologist Wilhelm Schmidt, on pg. 64 of his Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories, indicates that some of the most ancient H-G cultures (Southeast Australia) have a primal pair of birds which serve as totems, one male and one female, as their ancestors.
- Certainly, having animals as mythic ancestors is not the norm among the oldest H-G tribal cultures.
- According to Brian Heyden in his ‘Social Complexity’ paper in The Oxford Handbook of the Archaeology and Anthropology of Hunter-Gatherers, the oldest archaeological records we have for ancestor cults come from the Natufian culture (c. 11,000-8,000 BC) in the Levant. (p. 653)
- For a Christian, animals as ancestors may seem anathema or perfectly fine depending on your view of scriptures. However, this point may be a source of tension depending on a specific tribal myth and your soteriological views.
- The “worship,” as a modern Westerner understands it, of ancestors does not emerge in the archaeological record does not emerge until Egypt, c. 3100 BC, or Mesopotamia, c. 2500 BC.
“Animistic” Beliefs Roughly Compatibility With Mere Christianity
The idea of syncretism rings hollow to most Western Christian ears. Syncretism seems synonymous with the word “compromise.” And when we hear of hunter-gatherer societies that that exhibit “animisitic” beliefs accepting Jesus as their savior and king but keep their folklore and worldview features intact, our first reaction might be hesitancy or skepticism.
And sure, why not? After all, there are an infinite number of philosophical, metaphysical and theological debates that are to be had amongst believers.
But as we’ve seen in this article, there is a surprising number of “animistic” beliefs that could fit into orthodox Christian and ancient Israelite worldviews with arguable snugness. And besides, syncretism has a ton of its own baggage as a term, just like animism.
So… let us proceed with openness, understanding, and love for our fellows as we wrestle with our discovery of God’s ancient, multi-faceted, and enduring relationship with humanity.
YHWH's Janitor 