Tribal god

Tribal god DEFAULT

The Tribal God


I FEAR Prof. MacBride (NATURE, Dec. 3, p. 807) has entirely failed to distinguish between speaking contemptuously of the Deity and of some people's conceptions of the Deity. He has also withdrawn from mine and Mr. Squire's context the explanatory text. This is a common failing of the journalist, but ought not to be of the scientist.

Author information


  1. University College, Gower Street, W.C.1


About this article

Cite this article

PEARSON, K. The Tribal God. Nature120, 880 (1927).

Download citation

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.


Omnipotence and omnipresence are characteristics of divinity that can only be grasped and imagined by the most advanced societies. The narrower social units of primitive times evolved narrower religious concepts. One such simple unit through which most families of mankind have passed is the tribe; and the special traits of tribal society are reflected in tribal religion, of which the fullest picture is presented us by the early Hellenic and Judaic records. It is true that a purely tribal religion is only found in a few savage societies of modern times; and we are not concerned at present with their stage of culture. When we survey the societies of the past that belong to the higher history of our subject, we find them already advanced beyond the stage at which the isolated tribe formed the sole unit of corporate life. This is eminently true of the Hellenes, who preserved at the period of their highest culture the clear tribal imprint on many of their social institutions, but who at the dawn of their history were already gathering into cities, and the cities were usually formed by the coalescence of many tribes and even aliens; it is true also of the Hebrews, for, though the tribal organization is most marked in their society, they are already an intertribal union and in some degree a nation at the dawn of their history, with some measure of central government even under their judges, and with full measure under their kings. Ancient Arabia before Islam presents the same picture of many kindred tribes with common intertribal cults, and Mecca was a holy centre long before Mahomet. In the great kingdoms of the ancient world which contribute so much material to our theme, Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, the Hittite realm and Persia, religion has become national and imperial, the deities mighty territorial potentates with far-reaching influence. Even in ancient India, which was not united till the reign of Asoka, we find the worship of the same deities spread over wide areas and throughout large aggregates of men. And among these great communities the old tribal separatism has been swallowed up and lost, only faint traces of it surviving perhaps in the legend or ritual-law of some local temple; the same may be said of ancient China, Mexico, and Peru.

Nevertheless all these peoples, except for one short interval in the reign of the gifted but premature Ikhnaton of Egypt, and except for a certain higher outlook suggested or foreshadowed by some of the Hebrew prophets, are alike in this, that their deities are tribal-national, local or territorial, that is to say, particularist deities who do not claim or receive the worship of alien communities. This, then, gives us the vital and the momentous distinction between particularist and universal religion, which to students of the higher aspects of our subject is primary; and the full account of the effects of this distinction would be almost conterminous with the history of ancient civilization. The influence also of such a distinction upon the attributes and concept of the divinity is obviously far-reaching; and only the salient points and problems can be here set forth.

We need not wonder that for many aeons mankind should have remained in the particularist stage of religion, and that the advance to the belief in a god of all mankind, of the whole earth, and the whole universe should be so late and so difficult that it has not yet prevailed. The outlook of early man was limited to his own narrow region and to the patch of the heavens above it; if he was like some modern savages he was not always aware that the sun which rises to-day was the same as that which rose yesterday or which shines on another tribe a hundred miles away. His concept of deity then must follow his separatist concepts of nature. For those inquirers, indeed, of a former generation who believed that all mankind was once in the tribal totemistic stage, that each tribe had one totem only and that the totem became the special god of the tribe, an explanation why all early religion was particular and separatist was at once provided. But those of us who cherish those beliefs no longer need not be embarrassed for an explanation of the fact. Two dominant factors may be accepted as suggesting or dictating a particular society's devotion to one or more particular deities: locality and sense of kinship. A special locality has been from time immemorial haunted by some god or goddess, for reasons often far beyond our ken; the aboriginal tribe or society that has lived there for many ages is whole-heartedly devoted to him or to her, and they are his own, perhaps his ‘peculiar’, people; or an alien tribe arrives and acquires the region and acquires gradually the same devotion to the cult which is deep-rooted in the soil. Thus Athens was the primeval home of the Minoan-Mycenean virgin-goddess Athena; but the Nordic Hellenic tribes who came down and settled round the Akropolis, and who had not known her in their northern home, became her special and beloved people, and scarcely left her even when Christianity gained possession of their rock. This is only a salient instance of what must have happened again and again in the settlements and migrations of tribes.

A still stronger tie is the feeling of kinship between the tribe or community and the divinity; and this might find expression in the belief that the divinity was the physical parent, the ancestor or ancestress of the tribe or of the royal or ruling families of it. Hence arose the sexual myths explaining the divine ancestry which belong to a barbaric phase of the religious imagination, found for instance in Scandinavia in respect of some of the royal houses and found broadcast in ancient Greece in respect of the leading Hellenic tribes; thus Zeus is the ancestor or paternal god of the Aiakidai, of the Pelopidai, and therefore of the later Dorians, Apollo as the father of Ion is the ancestor of the Ionians, Poseidon of the Minyans. In Egypt it is only the royal dynasty that were of divine ancestry, the Pharaohs being the sons of the sun-god. On the other hand, in the earliest recorded stage of Hebrew religious thought, God has no physical kinship with man, and the children of Israel were a ‘peculiar’ people because Jahwé called Abraham and their devotion to Jahwé arose from God's own election.

In any case, the sense of fellowship and intimacy uniting the tribe and the tribal god is fostered and strengthened by the sacrificial meal, the deep significance of which in the communities of Mediterranean culture has been the theme of Professor Robertson Smith's master-work, The Religion of the Semites. The tribal worshipper and his deity feasted together, and might be conceived to become thereby in a sense ‘of one flesh’. In some communities this solemn meal might acquire a deeper sacramental character, the worshipper believing that he was partaking of food or drink that was possessed by the divine spirit. The potent influence of this sacrificial meal, whether sacramental or merely communal, upon the religious imagination and the moral and social life of the tribe or community has been impressively set forth by the above-mentioned writer.1 The deity takes on the character of the fellow, the friend and helper of the tribe or society, the guardian of its social life, partaking of its loves and hatreds, assisting it in war against the tribal enemy; while the temperamental differences of the peoples will develop his character and attributes differently. The Hellenic communities for the most part lived on terms of genial comradeship with their divine patrons, without brooding deeply upon them. But the Hebrew mind with its deeper sense of the awfulness and ineffable majesty of Jahwé, and with its intense conviction of the reality and moral authority of their tribal god, has evolved the highest ethical monotheism and the deepest belief in a personal god that the world has known.

This, then, is our debt to the tribal separatist religion. We may say that its narrowness has been redeemed by its strong intensity of feeling, whence have sprung these fruits for the world, garnered mainly from the tribal religion of a ‘peculiar’ people. It is easy, on the other hand, to recognize its drawbacks and the limited conception of Godhead that it implies. The tribal god may be cruel and pitiless in respect of aliens; the cruelty of Jahwé, a reflex of old Hebrew ferocity, is a blot on the older religion of Israel and its shadow remains in our own. The tribal god is a communal god and concerned mainly with the whole society and less with the individual soul; and this stage of society is adverse to the emergence of deep personal religion, just as it is adverse to the separate claims of the individual life. Also, the morality of the tribe, its moral responsibility is corporate, and the whole body must suffer for the sins of an individual; the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children; Jahwé visits the offence of David upon the whole people; the deity sends a plague or a dearth upon the land where one person has sinned. There is some survival of this mode of thought even in our own culture; for in certain doctrine concerning the Atonement, as that through the sin of Adam all mankind are guilty, our own advanced theology bears the imprint of the old tribal theory of corporate responsibility, of which the converse doctrine is that one life may atone for the sin of the whole community; and that is the basis of much of our Christology.

As the tribe developed into the nation or into the Hellenic city-state with its passion for autonomy, religion retained its local and exclusive character, sometimes even intensified. To share in the worship was the privilege of the citizens, which might be and often was refused to the alien and the slave; and certain cults might be the exclusive privilege of certain families; or the priesthood might be in the hands of certain tribes, like the Levites or the Eumolpidai, that had become incorporated in the larger aggregate. In such a religion there is no spirit of propagandism, the Hellenic colonies do not preach Zeus and Apollo, though they might wisely admit the barbarians under pressure.

The small independent civic states of Greece, each based on some fusion of tribal groups, present the most salient examples of the strength and the weakness of civic, local, and national religion; for all the institutions of the Greek polis were permeated with religion, more deeply than was the case in any other recorded society except the Hebraic; and the life of the Hellenic community was far more varied and rich, more adapted to the free spirit of man than was that of Israel; for, as has been said, in Hellas religion was a servant rather than a master. Attic literature and records afford many interesting illustrations of this unique interaction of the two spheres, the divine and the secular. The highest divinities become politicians, inspiring council in the council-chamber and in the assembly and are even supposed to preside over the orators' platform, deriving from these functions certain titles whereby they might be invoked. Apollo was elected as an annual magistrate at Miletos, Boreas was admitted and invoked as a citizen in Magna Graecia at the city of Thourioi; perhaps the strangest phenomenon of all is an Attic inscription which invokes Athena as the embodiment of the democracy, the only example in history of that mode of government being regarded as part of the divine order of the State.

The contrast that such a society presents in this vital respect to our own or to any modern political community is glaring. We do not enjoy hearing our party orators speak religion, as did the Athenian in the age of Demosthenes; we do not approve of preaching party politics in the pulpit. We try to keep our deepest religion away from the atmosphere of politicians, hoping to preserve its purity and truthfulness. Yet some touch of the old-world civic and national religion still lingers in our liturgies. We still pray for the king, the nobles, the commons, and the magistracy, and for victory over the king's enemies; and the old tribal society would have found this part of our service most congenial. The Houses of Parliament pray for divine guidance in their counsels, just as the Athenian Boulé prayed; for we, like the people of ancient Athens, believe that the deity inspires counsels of political wisdom and righteousness; and there still may be some surviving who believe in the divine right of kings, as did the ancient Egyptian; and our liturgy still uses complimentary terms concerning our sovereign in commending him to the Most High. For the liturgy of a great historic church is the mirror of many ages.

The chief danger to which a society may be exposed by the narrow view of religion that we have called tribal is the danger lest the passionate devotion to the tribal god should engender a morbid excess of self-exaltation, quickening at last the belief that one's tribe is a ‘chosen’ people, divinely charged with the extermination of alien peoples of other gods. This belief is the momentous product of that view of the character and attributes of the deity that we may call particularist. It is irreconcilable with any humanitarian religion or with the higher belief in a Universal Father. History records the tragic issue of such a belief in the necessary destruction of Jerusalem; and the modern parody or base revival of this tribal vanity, the German attempt to substitute ‘von Gott’ for the God of mankind, contributed to the downfall of Germany. Wars of religion, rightly so called, the outcome of the fanatical cruelty that prompts or justifies the extermination of aliens of different creed, are practically unknown in the ancient world, save in Judaic history; and in spite of the revelations of some of their older prophets, this spirit of fanaticism waxes fiercest in their later period, in the Maccabean wars and under the Roman Empire; and the tribal egotism of which it is a part is imprinted even on their later conception of a Messianic millennium. As the same spirit appears with devastating results in Islam, the conclusion has been drawn that it is a vice natural to the Semitic races; but the records of other Semitic peoples do not justify us in branding thus the Semitic character in general. We may explain the religious wars of Islam mainly by the Judaic tradition that deeply influenced Mahomet, partly also by the necessity he was under of alluring his followers by the hope of spoil. The self-inflicted agonies of earlier and later Christendom are the fatal consequence of the same Judaic tradition, from which the early Christian Church in accepting the Judaic canon was unable to free itself, and which engendered the dogma that God's pity and scheme of salvation are extended only to those who hold the right theory of his nature and follow the right worship, and that those who do not are outside the pale of his mercy or orthodox man's compassion. Even Puritanism, having escaped from the cruelties of Catholicism, was cruel in proportion as it was Judaic; and we can see the influence of the fierce tribal religious spirit in the later controversies concerning the abolition of slavery. By the side of this alien element in our religion and wholly irreconcilable with it is the conception of an all-loving universal God, which was the birthright of Christianity.

The progress from the tribal-particularist phase to the universal concept of God is the most interesting event in our religious history; and we would wish to discern and understand the influences making for that development. It has sometimes been associated with the expansion of mighty empires, obliterating the narrow limits of tribe and small nation. Thus the astonishing outburst of the world-religion of the monotheist Ikhnaton has been naturally connected by Breasted with the great imperial extension of the Egyptian power, enfolding then the greater part of anterior Asia. Much also has been said and written concerning the essential help given to the propagation of so universalistic a religion as Christianity by the fact of the Roman Empire holding together in peace so many and such varied communities of men; and even the Paganism of this Empire was displaying the same universal spirit, as it was wont to fuse various local deities into one, and seemed striving to reach the conception of a universal God of mankind. And even the great kingdoms that emerged from the empire of Alexander show some signs of the same influence at work. The early monotheism of China, so far as it is discernible there, might also be connected with the far-reaching geographical extent of that realm.

But it by no means follows that the mere influence of a far-flung empire engenders in the advanced religious thinkers who are members of it the concept of a world-deity who is concerned equally with all mankind. The old Mesopotamian religion embraced a vast imperial society; but the Sumerian-Babylonian divinities, though one of them might be the creator of the whole world, are not clearly imagined as concerned with all mankind, but only with the ‘dark-haired people’. A few incantations may designate Ishtar as ‘the Mother of Gods and men’,2 but probably only in the sense that she is the pro-creative source of all physical life; and other formulae attached to the Highest Gods such as Enlil and Bel, ‘Lord of the breath of life of Sumer’, ‘Lord of the Life of the Land’,3 do not reach to the height of such a concept as of a Universal Providence of all mankind. We have marked some approach to this in the early monotheism of Egypt and in the prophetic monotheism of Israel. But the people of Israel were not the people of a great empire. Nor were the Homeric Greeks; yet we find among them a glimmering of the same idea in that strange and pregnant Homeric phrase, ‘Zeus the father of Gods and men’, which as I have shown possessed no physical sense but only a moral or providential sense;4 and we must not in this formula interpret ‘men’ in a limited or national reference; for other Homeric utterances reveal the High God as more than a merely national God; he regards Greeks and Trojans alike: ‘they are both a care to me, though they perish.’5

In fact Greece was the cradle of the humanitarian spirit. And those who in the former generation belittled its contribution to the development of higher religion ignored the significance of the rise of Orphism, a Dionysiac mystical religion, the first example in the world of the missionary spirit of propagandism; for it passed over the barriers of tribe, city, nation, and social status, proclaiming to all the world its message of salvation, which was based on the dogma of the kinship of man with God. Its votaries may not have been numerous or strongly influential. But in the fifth century Euripides stands forth as the poet-prophet of the humanitarian spirit. In his ethical and religious utterances we feel that the human soul is escaping the bondage of tribe and city and the narrower conceptions of kinship; as in his beautiful fragment

The whole heaven is open to the eagle's flight,

And to a noble man the whole earth is his fatherland.6

This free and expansive view is maintained also by Menander, the great master of the younger Attic comedy in the fourth century and like Euripides a moralist and preacher with a larger audience than the philosophers had. It is salient also in all Greek philosophy, even in the earliest Ionian and Pythagorean, in the Platonic and Aristotelian scarcely less than in the later Stoicism which endeavoured to found a philosophy harmonizing physics, ethics, and religion for the whole world. All the thinkers of these schools, when they discuss the nature of God and his relations to the world and to the human life and soul, speak in terms applicable to the whole cosmos and to the aggregate of mankind, and the narrowness of the old clan-religion, the religion of the tribe, the city, or the special group, nowhere appears.

The same impression is made on us by much of the higher Hebrew prophecy, and by many passages full of personal religious inspiration in the Babylonian and Vedic hymns. We discern in these the true utterance and voice of personal religion, in which the individual soul is in direct and tense communion with God; and we may discern, what may seem like a paradox, that it is through the emergence of individualism in the sphere of ethics and religion that the concept of God is broadened and universalized till it rises wholly above the limitations of the social group, whether clan or empire, and is adequate for mankind as a whole. For the individual, when he can retreat from the group and strive in close and intense communion with the deity is probably never then conscious of himself as a member of a special social unit but only as a single self in relation to the Highest Power. Such a retreat may imply egotism, in contrast with the altruism of social clan-worship; but the individual at such moments, standing outside all social status, puts himself consciously or unconsciously on the plane of all the souls in the world, and hence could arise the world-concept of God as the Lord of all human life.

We have noted in a former lecture certain utterances in the various religions of the pregnant idea that the divinity deals directly with the soul or mind of man, which is regarded at times as in a special sense his shrine or temple or even identified with him. Certain moral religious implications, of philosophic as well as social significance, are involved in this idea. It may suggest the view, revolutionary of the old-world order, that if all souls are equal before God, slavery is unjustified; but as Greece was the first home of modernism, it was only Greece that dared to draw this corollary, to which Christendom was blind for long. As against the narrow view of Aristotle that the barbarian is by nature intended for slavery, Philemon, an Attic poet of the fourth century, anticipates the doctrine of the American Revolution by declaring that ‘no one is by nature born a slave’.7

Another corollary, entirely repugnant to the old clan-morality, is that vicarious punishment and vicarious atonement are unjust and against true religion; the sins of the fathers shall not be visited on the children: the soul that sinneth it shall die. We are familiar with the impressive deliverance of Ezekiel on this vital matter. It is not so well known that Theognis, a contemporary of his in distant Greece, had independently attained almost the same height of vision.8 ‘Father Zeus, would that this were the will of the Gods that he who deviseth unrighteousness in his soul should himself pay the penalty of his evil deeds and that the wickedness of the father should not become a curse to the children; but that the children of an unjust father whose hearts are set on righteousness… should never pay the penalty for the trespass of their sires.’ Later Jewish thought was by no means enlightened on this point: ‘did this man sin or his parents that he was born blind?’ And our own Christology, as we have seen, is not yet delivered from the fetters of group-morality. It was left for Mahomet to take up the torch from Ezekiel and to champion the doctrine in religion of the sole responsibility of the individual: ‘he who errs, errs only against his own soul, nor shall one burdened soul bear the burden of another;’9 nor, as we have seen, does Mahomet allow of any mediator between the soul and God, as is allowed in an earthly monarchy between the individual and the ruler.

We may say then that under different inspirations the Hellene through clearness of bold thinking, the Hebrew through passion for righteousness, the mode of escape was shown from ‘the sting of heredity’, and that the development of personal religion quickened and facilitated the birth of the concept of a universal God standing everywhere in the same relation to the individual soul.

But one momentous inheritance from the old clan-religion that could fructify and expand in a larger setting was the belief in a kinship between God and man; this belief was often taken in a literal physical sense, as we have seen, and supposed to rest on real fact in the old tribe and the old city; then when men could come to regard themselves, as in the Stoic view, as citizens of the whole world, so Augustine's idea of a Civitas Dei, a city of God in which all men were brothers and united in fellowship with God, could arise. But the idea of the universal brotherhood of man remains a religious ideal, undeveloped and perhaps incapable of developing into any practical social form.

Meantime, the spirit of national separatism, though it is not allowed to determine or to dominate the conception of God and of his functions and attributes, asserts itself strongly in established worship. Some recent writers have expounded religion as essentially a social phenomenon. We may believe, certainly, that it began with the social unit; and the congregation of the faithful is the modern representative of the clan or the tribe. We are aware also of the powerful psychic stimulus conveyed to the individual by the soul-magnetism of the crowd engaged in a common service. But personal religion, though later in time, may be claimed to take precedence of the corporate in respect of depth and height. The corporate or the congregational is hierarchic and conservative; the prophet, the seeker for a new revelation, must escape from the crowd into the wilderness for a time; and the history of progressive religion justifies the old belief, strongly held by the Cambridge Platonists, that God as the source of all soul-life reveals himself most profoundly to the individual soul in solitude.10

  1. Tundra supercharger
  2. Counselling meaning in english
  3. Absolute total care

The September 11 Attack on the World Trade Center, heinous and abominable, produced a surge of patriotism and religious devotion characteristic of America whenever it engages in a new war.  Everywhere they are displaying the Stars and Stripes, from lapels to autos to homes to schools and churches and in every business.  Alongside it they are also posting what has become the current motto of the nation: God Bless America!

The preachers season their sermons with this exhortation.  The politicians, especially the President, close their speeches with it.

The President called the nation to a Day of Prayer and Remembrance.  In the service, televised from the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C., the man who, perhaps more aptly than any other, can be called the "national pastor" spoke.  Billy Graham referred to the "foundation of our nation" and said, "That foundation is our trust in God."  Then he closed by saying, "May God bless you all."

This great surge of religious devotion, paralleling and intertwined with the surge in patriotism, may be the most intense in the history of the United States, although the beginning of every American war produces this effect.  I remember the onset of World War II in America, following the attack on Pearl Harbor, when our rural, battery powered radios burst forth with this blend of religious and patriotic fervor.  Perhaps it was expressed best in the very popular song, "Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition."  I heard that song so many times that, after sixty years, its refrain yet rings in my ears.  And I relished it!

We can easily explain the current intensity.  This war is a different kind of war, because the enemy attacked in the name of his God, Allah, and seeks to make it a worldwide religious conflict.  If he can, he will polarize the world between the Christians and the Muslims until, as Muhammad wrote in the Koran,

[9.33] He it is Who sent His Apostle with guidance and the religion of truth, that He might cause it to prevail over all religions.
That is surely the ultimate goal of the radical Muslim terrorists, and we can only hope that they do not succeed in this drive to the polarization of the world, and that the great masses of Muslims worldwide will remain beneficent lovers of peace.  So, to meet the threat from the tribal god of the Muslims, Americans also call upon the god of their tribe and invoke his blessing.

Yes, the god of the Americans is a tribal god.  It is our purpose in this brief paper to explain this assertion.

I. God and the Tribal God.

The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, creator of all things, is the only true and living God.  He it is who spoke to Moses on the Holy Mountain and He it is who speaks to us through the Holy Words of Jesus of Nazareth.  He it is who rules over all things and it is He who gave to the Lord Jesus all authority in heaven and on earth.  Let there be no confusion about that. But He it is not who blesses America in its wars.  That one is America's tribal god.

God the Father desires to reveal himself to the Americans through Jesus but they do not and cannot hear Him.  They know about HIm but they do not know him.  Instead they impose upon Him and upon his Holy Name the vision of their imaginary tribal deity.  This is very confusing because it produces the illusion that they are worshipping Him when in fact they are not.  There is, however, no excuse for this.  The illusion is quickly shattered when one receives the Holy Words uttered by Jesus of Nazareth, for these are the self revelation of the only true God and Father.  The illusion is not unique to Americans for it prevails over all nations of Christendom and over Israel and Islam.

II. The Mark and Definition of a Tribal God

The ancient Israelites invaded Canaan and sought to establish themselves in the midst of tribal groupings of peoples devoted each to the god of the tribe.  They therefore characterized their struggle as a struggle between the God of Israel and the tribal deities of their neighbors.  This characterization is strongly evident during the latter days of the judges when, in the days of Samuel, they entered into conflict with the cities of the Philistines.  They were themselves heavily influenced by these tribal deities and this caused them, in their devotion to the one and only universal God of Abraham, to loose sight of Him and to see, instead, the vision of a tribal deity unique to them -- that is, their own tribal god.

They were losing the struggle with the Philistines and even lost possession of their precious "ark of God", which was a sort of idol of their own, an object of veneration wherein dwelt the spirit of their God.  The Book of I Samuel tells the fascinating story of how the Philistines brought the captured ark home to their city, Ashdod, and placed it in the house of Dagon, their tribal deity.  Behold, the next day they arose to discover that Dagon (the idol) had fallen face down on the ground before the ark of God.  Undeterred, they set him back up.  But behold, the next morning they found that Dagon had again fallen face down to the ground.  Furthermore, the head of Dagon and both his hands were lying cut off upon the threshold!  (I Samuel 5)

The God of Israel had dismembered the god of the Philistines!  This is a chief characteristic of tribal gods.  Whenever a foreign tribe attacks, it is understood to be ultimately a contest between the gods of the respective tribes.  The tribe that wins does so because it has the strongest god.  The scriptures therefore described this in such a way as to encourage Israel by demonstrating that their god was stronger than Dagon, the god of the Philistines.  Men almost everywhere and at all times, both primitive and modern, exhibit this same archetypical mind.  Whenever they go to battle, they carry with them the belief, often unspoken and only subconscious, that their god is the most powerful and will give them the victory if they manifest great devotion to him.

Human beings come by this naturally.  We see it manifest in very young children who have not yet conceived the idea of the divine, yet who nevertheless have a deep need to call upon one stronger than they.  So one child, confronted by a second hostile child who seems to be too strong to attack directly, will instead invoke a higher power:

My Daddy can whip your Daddy!

This state of mind is the mark that signals devotion to a tribal god.

We can now define the concept, tribal god.  A tribal god is an imaginary deity that a tribe or nation invokes to both bless them and grant victory over the enemy and the god of the enemy when it enters into war.  The tribal god is therefore a god of war, and it is only in a time of inter - tribal conflict that the tribal nature of a god becomes clear.

In the modern world as in the ancient one, each of the contenders, if basically monotheistic, will overlay their belief in the one God with the characteristics of a tribal god, a deity that contends for and blesses their specific tribe or nation as it goes to war.  The consequence, in the minds of the contenders, is that there are two gods contending against each other, just as there are two contending tribes or nations.  After the battle is over the victorious party will thank its god for the victory, whereas the defeated party will ask why their god forsook them.  Their usual conclusion is that their god did not fight for them because they were not sufficiently faithful to him.  Both parties have lapsed into a polytheistic faith according to which the gods of the parties are different deities.

It is thus that America has turned to its tribal god.

III. The God and Father of the Lord Jesus

It is a common sense rule of discipline that one in authority must not be partial when a fight breaks out among unruly subjects.  For example a school teacher must be impartial when the children fight.  The fight is itself the major breach of discipline, not the grievances of the children.  Similarly, neither the Lord Jesus nor his Father in heaven involve themselves in the wars that break out among the children of this world.  The war is itself an horrendous breach of discipline such as no grievance can justify.

The following are some of the rules that the Father has issued to guide his children in this world (in contrast with the children of the world) whenever they enter into a situation that tempts them to war:

Matthew 5
39 But I say to you, Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also;

43 You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'
44 But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.

Matthew 10
27 What I tell you in the dark, utter in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim upon the housetops.
28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? And not one of them will fall to the ground without your Father's will.

Mark 8
34 And he called to him the multitude with his disciples, and said to them, "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.
35 For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.
36 For what does it profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?

Mark 8:35, listed here, is one statement of the Great Principle that underlies all of the work and ministry of Jesus.  It is the principle that applies universally to the children of the Father, especially now when they are confronted with the prospect of involvement in America's New War.

It was in the same type of situation that Jesus himself took up his cross and showed us the Way.  He was confronted by the unjust subjugation of his nation by the Romans.  The patriots were seeking their god's "messiah" who would muster them to arms and fight in just cause against the injustice inflicted upon them daily.  At one point they were willing to believe that Jesus was that messiah.  So, as the scriptures state,

John 6
14 When the people saw the sign which he had done, they said, "This is indeed the prophet who is to come into the world!"
15 Perceiving then that they were about to come and take him by force to make him king, Jesus withdrew again to the mountain by himself.
Jesus rejected this attempt by the people to enthrone him even though his nation was hurting and every true patriot was ready for battle.  They lacked only a leader.  Later he explained this refusal to fight, an explanation that applies both to himself and his followers:
John 18
35 Pilate answered, "Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?"
36 Jesus answered, "My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world."
37 Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice."
Don't you see?  When Jesus refused to fight -- refused to permit his servants to fight -- he was only being a "witness to the truth".  When he commanded his servants saying,
Matthew 16
24 . . . If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.,
he was commanding his disciples in the world today, and every day, to follow him so as to bear witness to this same truth.

The words of Jesus are the words of the Father; the deeds of Jesus are the deeds of a man doing the will of the Father, who understands that the Father does not fight for any worldly cause, however just it may seem.  That is because his kingdom is different -- it is not of this world.  Therefore neither the Lord Jesus nor the Father can or will take sides in any earthly fray.

God the Father in heaven therefore does not bless America's war against the terrorists; neither does he bless the terrorists.  He only grieves while the children of this world murder each other, precisely as Jesus grieved over Jerusalem once it was clear that they rejected the Way of Peace:

Luke 19
41 And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it,
42 saying, "Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes.
43 For the days shall come upon you, when your enemies will cast up a bank about you and surround you, and hem you in on every side,
44 and dash you to the ground, you and your children within you, and they will not leave one stone upon another in you; because you did not know the time of your visitation."
Don't you see?  America, when you call upon a god to bless you in this new war and to give you victory, you are not calling upon the God and Father of the Lord Jesus.  You are only calling upon your tribal deity, who cannot hear you.  Like Dagon, the god of the Philistines, your deity only lies lifeless and face down before the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, his head and arms broken off!

IV. The World does not know God the Father

Although it is surely unnecessary, here is yet another utterance of Jesus that provides a confirmation of our thesis.  Jesus made a point of informing us of a simple but almost universally overlooked fact: the world does not know the one whom he named "Father."  This utterance comes from his prayer in Chapter 17 of the Fourth Gospel, verses 25, 26:

O righteous Father, the world has not known thee, but I have known thee; and these know that thou hast sent me. I made known to them thy name, and I will make it known, that the love with which thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.
This firmly establishes the fact that the world had not known the Father prior to the advent of Jesus, but leaves open the question as to whether the world would or could ever know the Father.  This question he settled with another word from the same Gospel, Chapter 14, verses 16, 17:
And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,  even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him; you know him, for he dwells with you, and will be in you.
The world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth, which is the Spirit of the Father; it neither receives nor knows Him.  This defines a condition that characterizes the world forever.  The world did not know the Father, does not know the Father, and can never know the Father.

We can therefore assuredly conclude that the world of today, the world of the Twenty First Century, does not and cannot know the Father of our Lord Jesus, nor will it ever know Him.

V. The American Nation and the World

Now do we need to establish that America is a nation of the world?  Surely not, yet even so the Lord Jesus has made it unequivocal in saying,

Luke 12
29 And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be of anxious mind.
30 For all the nations of the world seek these things; and your Father knows that you need them.
31 Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things shall be yours as well.
It is undeniable that America seeks these very things; therefore it is unequivocally a nation of the world.  But as a nation of this world, being itself of this world, Jesus has assuredly informed us that it does not and cannot know God.  It follows that America as a nation (tribe) of the world does not and cannot know God.  Like Jesus' Jerusalem, it has rushed to war because it does not know the things that make for peace, nor does it know the God of Peace, nor does it know the Prince of Peace.

The appeal of the Americans to their god for his blessing in this war is therefore not an appeal to the God and Father of the Lord Jesus, whom they do not know.  It must then be only an appeal to their tribal deity.

There is nothing the disciples of Jesus can do but weep, as Jesus wept over Jerusalem, because this beloved nation does not know the things that make for peace.  It cannot help itself in this mad rush to war.  That is what this world does.  It is because, contrary to that of Jesus, their kingdom is of this world.


The above has defined a tribal god as an imaginary deity to which a nation or tribe turns for help -- blessings and victory -- when it enters into war.  It is impossible that such a deity can be the only true God and Father of our Lord Jesus because he has made it known that the nation (tribe) of his children in the world does not go to war but loves the enemy instead.  He also shows himself as one who is not a partisan in any of the wars of human beings on the earth.  Therefore America's god, the one whose blessing is invoked in war, is only a tribal god.  This god is only a construct of fanciful imagination that has no real existence.  The attempt to identify this tribal deity with the Father in heaven is blasphemy for it seeks to identify as a god of war the only true God and Father who leads no one to war.  He leads his children only in the way of peace, a way that the nations of the modern world, like ancient Jerusalem, do not and can not know.  It is therefore a great folly to invoke his blessings on the nation entering into war.

The folly is no less where "Christian pacifists" strive for peace in the world through applying the principles of Jesus to world affairs.  They have always failed and they will always fail because it is not possible that the nations of the world can know either the way of peace or the Prince of Peace.  They ignore this one simple statement of their Lord:

Matthew 10
34 Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.
What, then, can the disciples of Jesus do in a time like this, when the spirit of a bellicose partiotism envelops the land?  We can always follow the example of our Lord:
Luke 19
41 And when he drew near and saw the city he wept over it,
42 saying, Would that even today you knew the things that make for peace! But now they are hid from your eyes.
Click here to read a paper on the peace of Jesus.

Return to List of Papers         Email       Return to Home Page

List of Native American deities

Tribe or group Deity or spirit Notes AbenakiAzebanTricksterGluskabKind protector of humanity MalsumisCruel, evil god PamolaBird spirit; causes cold weather TabaldakThe creator BlackfootApistotookiiCreatorNapiTricksterHaidaTa'xetGod of violent death[2]TiaGoddess of peaceful death[2]Ho-ChunkRed Horn'He Who Wears (Human) Faces on His Ears' HopiAholiA kachinaAngwusnasomtakaCrow Mother, a kachinaKokopelliFertility, flute player, a kachinaKokyangwutiCreation, Spider grandmother[3]MuyingwaGermination of seeds, a kachinaTaiowaSun spirit, creator InnuKanipinikassikueuProvider of caribou[4]MatshishkapeuSpirit of the anus[4]InuitIgalukLunar deity NanookMaster of bears NerrivikSea mother and food provider PingaGoddess of the hunt, fertility, and medicine SednaSea goddess, ruler of the underworld TorngasoakSky god IroquoisAdekagagwaaSummer GaolWind god GendenwithaMaiden, transformed into Morning Star by Dawn. GohoneWinter HahgwehdaetganGod of evil. Twin of Hahgwehdiyu. HahgwehdiyuCreator; god of goodness and light. Twin of Hahgwehdaetgan. OnathaFertility KwakiutlKewkwaxa'weRaven spirit LakotaCanopusHaokahSacred clown WhopePeace WiSolar spirit, father of WhopeEtuPersonification of Time Mi'kmaqNiskamMiwokCoyoteTricksterNarragansettCautantowwitCreator NavajoAsdzą́ą́ NádleehéCreation deity, changing woman Bikʼeh Hózhǫ́Personification of speech Haashchʼéé OołtʼohíDeity of the hunt HaashchʼééłtiʼíThe Talking god, god of the dawn and the east HashchʼéoghanThe House-god, god of evening and the west NiltsiWind god Tó Neinilii'Water sprinkler', rain god JóhonaaʼéíSun Yoołgai Asdzą́ą́'White-shell woman', lunar deity Mą’iiCoyote trickster god Black GodCreator of the stars, god of fire See also Diné BahaneʼPawneePahLunar deity ShakuruSolar deity TirawaCreator SalishAmotkenSupreme deity SenecaEagentciSky goddess HagonesTrickster HawenniyoA fertility god KaakvhaSolar deity SnohomishDohkwibuhchCreator TaínoYaya (god)Supreme God/Great Spirit YayaelThe son of Yaya Atabey (goddess)Mother goddess of fresh water and fertility. Female counterpart of the god YúcahuYúcahuThe masculine spirit of fertility in Taíno mythology along with his mother Atabey who was his feminine counterpart GuabancexThe top Storm Goddess; the Lady of the Winds who also deals out earthquakes and other such disasters of nature. JuracánThe zemi or deity of chaos and disorder believed to control the weather, particularly hurricanes. GuatauvaThe god of thunder and lightning who is also responsible for rallying the other storm gods. CoatrisquieThe torrential downpour Goddess, the terrible Taíno storm servant of Guabancex and side-kick of thunder God Guatauva. BayamanacoOld man fire; the Taíno spirit of Cohoba and guardian of the secrets of sweet potato bread. BoinayelTwin god of the moon and of rain, rainstorms, and floods. MárohuTwin god of the sun and of good weather; Boinayel's twin brother. Maketaori GuayabaThe god of Coaybay or Coabey, the land of the dead. Opiyel GuabironA dog-shaped god that watched over the dead; often associated with the Greek Cerberus. WyandotAiresekuiCreation[5]HengStorm god[6]IoshekaCreation[7]

God tribal

She felt her flesh become wet. Unbuttoning, she threw off her robe, remaining only in her panties, after which she felt the heat emanating from her body, and the warmth was spreading in the lower abdomen. - I am so weak, so tender, - the girl whispered, taking off her panties, - that I can not resist the desire, even if you. Are not around.

The Akha tribe in Laos: Between tradition and modernity - DW Documentary

I opened my mouth and reached for the one that was closest to the rest. - Clever. - I heard, and felt the hot head touched my lips, - Come on yourself.

Now discussing:

Take me again. Atlu hesitated and, approaching, knelt down. Moving the head of his penis along the vagina, he smoothly and gently, like before e, entered it.

2427 2428 2429 2430 2431