Author’s Note: This is part II following the post I made a year prior. It’s long, I don’t want to wait another year to publish a part III. Thanks to my proofreaders.

Heathens who are interested in developing a realized and coherent religious practice already engage in syncretic methods of construction, largely through interpretation driven by comparative research as well as a general methodology of wider reconstructionist practices. This is a necessary aspect of Heathen theological scholarship in order to establish a healthy and viable identity which can be transmitted to and embraced by future generations of interested practitioners. In the time since Heathenry’s emergence as an identifiably new religious movement, Heathen practice and theology has always benefited from the commingling of various practices of different groups of people. These groups are broadly seen as “Germanic” and thus loosely affiliated, despite no relation to any one cultural expression. One such example is the implementation by Norse-focused Heathens of various Old English customs or concepts in order to streamline and buttress their understanding of religious practice [1].

Socioanthropological and historical-anthropological studies have shown that syncretism is not only a common feature within the human condition beyond simple religious constructs: it is one which is also willingly used to justify, enact, and both intentionally and organically establish a cohesive image of a group’s identity and communal history. A goal of syncretism is to ask whether parts of a specific culture or religion are borrowed and, if so, how these borrowed facets should be contextually interpreted [2]. Challenges of identity, boundaries, and asking who comprises in-groups and out-groups are common questions which can appear in daily life, and syncretism directly interfaces and critically examines these common questions of religious and cultural existence [3]. Further, studies from a syncretistic point of view does not lead to an abandonment of other forms of cultural observation, nor posit that one should uncritically accept or pursue the proffered practice [4].

Heathenry exists as a nascent religious subculture within a domineering cultural milieu which takes the form of a hegemonic overculture, purporting itself to be a multicultural society [5]. In this context, syncretism and syncretic practices specifically enable the creation of a visible and defined religious system, and a more clearly imparted identity, which serves as a banner to which practitioners may flock. Syncretism also enables the identity of Heathenry as a practice to divorce itself from problematic ideologies, side-stepping cultural and religious essentialism through assumptions of “unsullied pristineness” and “objective realities” of a discrete unit which would insist on the purity and priority of their own voice, a common feature among the study of developing and emerging cultures [6].

Despite providing an immense contribution to the Heathen revivalist movement through extensive scholarship, academia traps itself by reducing both culture and religion to a dichotomous relationship, pitting them as binary constructs which then address syncretism independently of its historical contexts . It is common to encounter the view that syncretism is an expression of “adaptive growth” within the context of a single culture. Yet, the opposite exists in discussion of “religion”, where syncretism is portrayed and typified as a fundamentally impure, intrusive, and tainted influence [7].

This is further compounded by academia’s enthusiasm for deconstructing various cultural and religious traditions – especially those which have been identified as “syncretic” – which echos colonial attitudes and produces yet one more brand of intellectual imperialism, ignoring the realities of the subjective, experiential, and phenomenological representations of those traditions as they manifested and were nativised in-context. This results in throwing context out the window in favor of a “religion” which is decidedly Western, ethnocentrically biased, and thoroughly influenced by perceptions of Christianity as the exemplar — and deterministic outcome — of all religious expression [8].

New religious movements share attempts at the identification of core, constituent parts of their identities which may not be extant, or of a similar priority, in older traditions. In like kind, NRMs utilize practical and theoretical applications to explore these facets of self. The identification of religious mores, how one can bound and set their religion apart from other groups, self-determination descriptions, and more have become foci within the discussion of syncretic processes among both NRMs and their religious ethnographers [9].

The quest of contemporary Heathen religions to define their own religious identity faces numerous external challenges. “Heathenry”, as a collective religion, exists not only beneath the cultural milieu of an opposing hegemonic, monotheist, cultural identity, but is also identified through a detached academic lens focusing on deconstruction. It must also compete with and position itself against ethnonationalist sentiment and racialist separatism which would take the notion of purity of an idealized non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-foreign identity and force it onto the religious concept as a whole, as a rallying cry for racialist nationalism. A simple survey of the labels shows how ill-fitting they are even at their simplest.

Modern dictionaries will define “Heathen” and “Heathenry” in one of two ways: either through a Christo-centric religious terminology — that is, defining a person as being ‘Non-Christian’, with the implications of uncivilized status — or simply as someone who adheres to “Germanic neopaganism” [10]. Both definitions are unsatisfactory for the self-identification of practice due to their broad scope as well as their attachment of Heathenry-as-religious-culture to either Christian themes of religiosity or a veneer of “Germanic culturalism”.

Dispensing with the burdens of Christianity, the generic description of Heathenry as “Germanic neopaganism” does not distinguish the disparate religious paradigms which exist under the “pagan umbrella”. Through this description, practitioners of such religious traditions as Norse Wicca, Saxon Witchcraft (formerly Seax-Wica), or Nordic-focused groups associated with Ár nDraíocht Féin (ADF) would be “Heathen”, despite maintaining their own religious paradigms, definitions, and identities which many self-identifying Heathens do not share [11].

Thus, Heathnery-as-religion collectively has problems with definition, particularly because such labels are relativized. A casual observer may wonder why the notion of labels is so important. The symbolism and representation of identity embodied by a label assists in navigating the complexities of social organizations, and provides a transmittable group cohesion [12]. The history of ideas is complex, and labels are fluid and mixed. Without the process of critically questioning self-identity, and without the developments which are afforded by syncretic theory, contemporary Heathenry as a religious identity is bereft of agent self-determination.

In order to begin to differentiate an identity among the various Heathen religions [13], reconstructionist methodology is employed in order to utilize contemporaneous facets of other “neighboring” religions through the use of complementary research. This deliberate reconstruction is often identified by observers as the most distinctive aspect of Heathenry as a religious identity [14]. This is not undertaken to merge Heathenry into an eclectic morass of “best” practices under the purview of the individual but, rather, to take the viewpoints put forth by the juxtaposed tradition(s) so as to better articulate a workable and contemporary ‘Heathen’ religious system. The fundamentals of religious engagement, that is, the role and expression of ritual, or prayer, of the very nature of cosmological understanding, is left to contemporary practitioners to innovate what can be broadly described as ‘religion’, due to a lack of attested and historic representation.

As a primarily empirically-driven religion, Heathenry’s methods of inquiry are informed by the Historical Sciences. There are two considerations regarding this reliance. The first is that developments in scholasticism are of limited use in the contextualization of thought or action within the minds of the people being studied [15]. Reconstructions can vary from privileging textual sources in the absence of in situ material evidence to resorting to mere speculation when presented with incomplete material evidence and little or no complementary textual evidence. Ideally, one strives to incorporate both types of evidence to achieve a holistic view of a given practice one wishes to reconstruct. None, however, can truly impart the knowledge of an individual’s engagement within their time and circumstances; we are presented only with a fragmentary view. An ancient Hellenic philosopher imparts their particular worldview, to be sure, yet it is reflective of a particular class of people and not the fullest extent of society or the vagaries of religious expressions of the time. The particular spirit behind this text or that artifact cannot be meaningfully reconstructed by a Modern individual, being so far removed from the particular conditions and considerations of any given Pre-Modern society.

Various Heathen religions, once differentiated by now-lost religio-cultural boundaries, possess very little in the way of textual evidence. Even the broadly shared common ‘Germanic mythology’ (typified by Eddic Lore) is recorded through a Christian paradigm, to say nothing about the individual vagaries which ultimately inform local belief. This leads into the second consideration of reliance on the ideas of academia – the mutability of the idea. Cultural representations, syncretism among them, are the product of input processed by the human mind, each with a separate lived experience [16].

Individual ideas form the genesis of syncretic thought, from the exposure of new concepts through the progression of reconciliation with currently held beliefs. These concepts are then argued communally, through the agency of the individual, through ritualized or interpersonal action, or with interacting in the local and regional landscape [17]. The person – the individual in their myriad of social and religious capacities – are engaged in these social worlds through a bonding of shared identity. The argument that syncretism occurs only on the macro-scale of human interaction ignores the micro- and localized phenomenological contexts which form the foundation of communal alterations and interpretations of tradition, effectively erasing the day-to-day business and basis of practitioners who live and breathe the culture. The difficulty in observing the process of syncretism does not deny the ubiquity of its role in the human condition, nor does it negate its importance.

Existing within the traditional pre-Christian religious frameworks of the European-Mediterranean basin and the Ancient Near East [18] syncretism can be as prominent and easily recognized as pan-regional deities such as Zeus-Ammon, Sarapis, the whole of the process of Hellenization throughout the Mediterranean, or the development of the cult of the god Mars [19].

Again, only emphasizing this aspect of syncretism ignores the microscopic interactions of day-to-day views and enactment of religions, as syncretism can be as innocuous as that of the dedicatory altar designated RIB 1102. Found at Ebchester (Vindomora) in 1784, this piece of epigraphic evidence is particularly interesting for contemporary practitioners of Heathenry as it provides evidence of what the community could view as the actions of a predecessor to their own religious beliefs and identities.

Inscribed upon the buff sandstone votive are the words “Deo | Verno|stono | Cocidi| o Viri[l]is | Ger(manus) v(otum) s(olvit) l(ibens) ❦ ”, “To the god Vernostonus Cocidius, Virilis, a German, willingly fulfilled his vow.”[20] This inscription provides an example of the fluidity of religious engagement, a tangible remnant of syncretic ritualized actions and intents, whereby a Germanic tribesperson of no known historic importance engages in ritualistic cult to a Celtic deity, within the cultural and religious milieu of the wider Latin-speaking world. In this way we can see the translation of these concepts into a “third language” of religion, paraphrasing de Vries, one which was at once understandable, approachable, and of importance to even a single individual yet capable of coexistence with the original expression [21].

In the context of revivifying the essence of these polytheistic beliefs within religions such as modern Heathenry, syncretism can be approached as David Frankfurter does, treating it not as a “weaving together of two theological systems or institutions” but as “an assemblage of symbols and discourses [..] to articulate a new religious ideology.” [22]. Unlike assimilation (influence), fusion (intertextuality), or other modes of eclecticism, syncretism’s most important goal is to articulate through its own paradigmatic frame of reference these concepts into a workable worldview. This takes the origin material and enunciates it for another audience, transforming it from what it once was [23].

This enunciation manifests as a process of bricolage in order to create a religious identity, the use of readily available elements of religions encouraged a proliferation of varieties and re-creations of local cults, utilizing an ever diversified vocabulary [24]. In an increasingly connected world, local peoples historically reshaped their cults and mythologies, expanding their growing vocabulary of religious terms in order to find a “best fit” in the dialogue between mundane and divine interaction [25].

Stepping back from the individual to the immediate local worlds, being argued once more from the position of the individual-as-local-community-member, where interpretations of adoption and adaptation of new and foreign deity concepts and cults, there are diverse experiences of local cults depending on the status and context where they are found, which above all differentiates them from associated supralocal entities or religious edifices. Increasing interaction of varying peoples has historically increased the religious diversity, and the individual had a much wider choice for both public and private devotions [26]. The use of media, theonyms and epithets, physical religious tools, etc., all aided in the creation of new deity-concepts which were previously unknown, yet no less valid than what had come before. It is through these processes that local identities are preserved under an external occupying force, while at the same time productively establishing relationship bonds which enabled the continuance of such practices [27].

Traditional cultural studies focus on a dichotomous interaction between forces and external powers, emphasizing one-way impacts and autonomous works, essentially culminating in a singular path of influence, which ignores the complexity of religious, social, and cultural creation [28]. Syncretic studies which can be applied within Heathenry highlight capacities of minor actors within the wider religious picture, and how contemporary practitioners can combine or rework new ideas and methods in order to develop increasingly complex schools of thought and traditions of religious practice. Given the decentralized nature of modern religious development in Heathenry as a new religious movement, it would be less effective to focus on a one-way give-and-take in order to enshrine the makings of a specific identity.

What is historically classified as “syncretism” in the late antique and migration-era periods has been argued to represent not a new mode of thought, but the ancient, original, ideas of popular religion. These ideas, suppressed in popular discourse on the subject by veneers of classicism and misrepresentation of indigenous religion, were deep-seated enough to rise to the surface, becoming apparent when the layers of whitewashing are stripped away through closer contextual engagements [29]. Heathenry as a modern revival of the religious identity of the pre-Christian Germanic tribes peoples, fits neatly into the paradigm established by the greater antique world, one of interconnectedness where religious mixing was the rule and not, as portrayed by dogmatic religious or academic institutions, an exception.

In engaging with syncretism in a positive and productive manner, Heathenry can develop an expansive and flexible religious language which gives an understanding to vastly different messages, preserving individual differences while allowing for a series of religious traditions to engage in expression. Unlike wider hegemonic forces, such as Westernization or mono-religious secularism, this process of syncretism, historically exemplified by such processes as Hellenism, allows the inner workings of each distinct Heathen religious practice to be visible with its own identity [30]. Thus a grounding of one’s identity — both individual and collective — can be understood in diverse ways, through the application of what can be considered religio-spiritual creativity [31].

There exists an inherent tension within Heathenry between the needs of innovating a modern practice and the connection of those practices to ancient traditions and the historicity behind them [32]. The ability to have contemporary identities emerge is gifted through creative re-elaboration of the traditions on which they are based. It paradoxically unites conservative and innovative impulses, through translation and syncretism, utilizing this intrinsic creativity afforded by the present informational give-and-take [33].

Impermeable religious categories are an extension of a Western Christian tradition which seeks to promote hegemony and diminish the uniqueness, diversity, and importance of other competing concepts. Recognizing this opens an expansive frontier of performative differences available to Heathenry. Contemporary Heathen practice, positioned within a globalized world, finds itself in a parallel situation to the historic experiences faced by local religions in the Western Roman period, whereby a society focusing on high levels of individualization (when compared to what came before) allowed for a greater flexibility of personal interpretation on a wider religious expression [34].

Cross-fertilization of cultures provides a creative process; this is as true of the time of the Principate of the Roman-era to the aptly named Information Age of the present [35]. In engaging with the material in this way, by focusing on the individual social agents of religion from a “bottom-up” approach and shifting emphasis away from the predominate centers of geopolitical power, we employ a more holistic understanding through globalist studies, in contrast to narrow discourses focusing on imperialism or colonialism.

Through local and individual interpretation, religions will naturally diverge, despite sharing the same decisive symbols which form the fundamental core of their religious expression. As Harrison puts it, “We all have some sort of religion which will differ from the religion of others, who bear the same label, and everyone’s religion is astoundingly complex.” [36] This truth, articulated simply, is that Heathendom-as-religion will inevitably diverge based on geographically local, culturally distinct expressions, or simple day-to-day differences in the practitioners which make up the lifeblood of the living system. The growth of these different identities is ultimately the result of syncretic practices that inform their practitioner’s understanding of the religion.

Most often, individuals leverage a purity of tradition or appeal to a historicity of a previous tradition — thus, arguing against syncretic tendencies — in order to mitigate uneasy feelings of self-consciousness, or a pressing sense that the newly assembled identities are contrived [37]. Yet the result is often far more deleterious than intended.

Positioning that individuals lack agency in affecting or imparting their experiences on a cultural system not only echos antiquated views of unchanged continuity of cultures and traditions, it exhibits a form of deprecating nihilism as to one’s position within that human community. Downplaying their contribution to local and regional neighborhoods in favor of a fanciful, non-existent purity of tradition, is an unjust assumption which diminishes the effects an individual may have, ultimately manifesting in erasure along class or social lines. The idea of a pure religion, of a pure culture, in the West has its roots in the Protestant experience, whereby attempts to “syncretize” the churches in the Reformation were accused of nefarious ends. It has consistency with romanticist and scientific racialist influences of the 19th century, positioning an anachronistic ethnocentrism into the development of an anti-Enlightenment nationalism [38].

When we speak of syncretism within Heathenry we should remember that the understanding of syncretic processes is not uniform. The grounding of one’s collective identity, or interpretation of material, can be understood in equally diverse, equally valid ways [39]. Attempting to enforce purity standards within a religious system as Heathenry, which has as its core fundamental history a myriad of vagaries of valid interpretations, presents a disingenuity of the history of these groups and those that would follow them.

Purity standards are enforced as measures of ideological control on the system of religion and culture, which coalesces power over that system in the hands of an elite that acts against opening the many contributors responsible for any collective identity [40]. Boundedness, continuity, and homogeneity are not objective aspects of social life, but often metaphors used to create an entitivity of a system, and in the discussion of some kind of social or religious absolute Truth, syncretic practices are seen as corruption [41].

As religious experiences, like all lived experiences, are subjective it is entirely wrong to maintain that syncretic developments are an exercise in conscious eclecticism [42]. The acknowledgements by syncretism of the permeability and fluidity of social life is diametrically opposed to the homogeneity preferred by those who would argue for strict, arbitrary, ideological purity standards.

Ultimately, with syncretism and Heathenry, we should be left with a quote by William Harrison:

“The reality then is that syncretism is a common process that touches every religion. It is so truly universal that we often do not recognize its presence. However, syncretism is a good thing and a necessary survival skill, for both individual persons and for whole religions.” [43]

[1] C.F., utilization of Beowulf, following in the comparative steps of scholars like Richard North and Paul Bauschatz.

[2] Stewart, Charles. “Syncretism as a Dimension of National Discourse in Modern Greece”, in Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics of Religious Synthesis, eds. Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw. Routledge: New York, 2005, pg 120.

[3] Harrison, William H. In Praise of Mixed Religion: The Syncretism Solution in a Multifaith World. McGill-Queen’s University Press: Montreal, 2014, pg. 33.

[4] Lambropoulos, Vassilis. “Syncretism as Mixture and as Method”, in Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol 19. 2001. Pg. 233.

[5] If defined as a cultural system, see also: Clifford Geertz, “Religion as a Cultural system”.

[6] Koepping, Klaus-Peter. “Manipulated Identities: Syncretism and Uniequeness of Tradition in Modern, Japanese Discourse”, in Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics of Religious Synthesis, eds. Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw. Routledge: New York, 2005, pg 157.

[7] Richard, H.L. “Religious Syncretism as a Syncretistic Concept”, International Journal of Frontier Missiology, 31:4 Winter 2014, pg. 213.

[8] Stewart, Charles & Rosalind Shaw in Lambropoulos. pg 232.

[9] Greenfield, Sidney M and A.F. Droogers. Reinventing Religious Syncretism and Transformation in Africa and the Americas. Rowman & Littlefield, 2001. pg. 25

[10] Wiktionary contributors, “Heathenry,” Wiktionary, The Free Dictionary, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Heathenry&oldid=54427301

[11] For this, see D.J. Conway’s “Norse Magic”, Ed Fitch’s “Rites of Odin”, and Raymond Buckland’s “Saxon Witchcraft” for typical approaches to Germanic-based Wiccan traditions. There is sizable overlap in reconstructionist methodologies between Heathenry and ADF , which muddles this example. However, while there are self-identified Heathen members of ADF, the organization largely identifies its members as ‘Druids’, first and foremost, regardless of their pan-Indo-European group makeup.

[12] Harrison, pg. 167.

[13] That is, those developing through the revivification of linguistic and group incidences, eg., “Anglo-Saxon”, “Norse”, “Frankish”, etc. Heathenries.

[14] Harvey, Graham, “Inventing Paganism”, in The Invention of Sacred Traditions: Sacred Creativity, eds. Stefania Palmisano and Nicola Pannofino, Palgrave Macmillan: Cham. Pg. 283.

[15] Harrison, pg. 166.

[16] Martin, Luther H. “Syncretism, Historicism, and Cognition: A Response to Michael Pye.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion Vol. 8 (1996) pg. 220.

[17] Frankfurter, David. Christianizing Egypt: Syncretism and Local Worlds in Late Antiquity. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 2018, pg. 24.

[18] I utilize this designation of geographic cultural continuity as the foundation for what we can determine to be modern contemporary paganism, see Michael York’s Pagan Theology and Jordan Paper’s The Deities are Many for further clarifications.

[19] Warrior, Valerie. Roman Religion, Cambridge University Press: New York, 2006, pg. 11.

[20] RIB 1102. Altar dedicated to Vernostonus Cocidius, Roman Inscriptions of Britian, Page generated: 2020-06-08 02:23:39, Https://romaninscriptionsofbritain.org/inscriptions/1102

[21] Lambek, Michael. “Provincializing God? Provocations from an Anthropology of Religion”, in Religion: Beyond a Concept ed, Hent de Vries, Fordham University, 2008, pg. 146.

[22] Frankfurter, pg. 16.

[23] Leopold, Anita. “The Architecture of Syncretism” in Historical Reflections / Réflexions Historiques, Vol. 27, No. 3, Retrofitting Syncretism? (Fall, 2011), pg. 417.

[24] Haeussler, Ralph. “Interpretatio Indigena. Re-Inventing Local Cults in a Global World” in Mediterraneo Antico, XV, 1-2, 2012, pp 143-174. Pg. 146.

[25] Haeussler, “Interpretatio”, pg. 171.

[26] Haeussler, “Interpretatio”, pg 146.

[27] Roymans, Nico. “Hercules and the Construction of a Batavian Identity in the context of the Roman empire” in Ethnic Constructs in Antiquity: The Role of Power and Tradition, eds. Ton Derks & Nico Roymans, Amsterdam University Press, 2009, pg 223.

[28] Lambropoulos, pg. 232.

[29] Barb, A.A in Kadmus. True to the Earth: Pagan Political Theology, Gods And Radicals Press: Olympia, Washington, 2018, pg. 83.

[30] Assmann, Jan. “Translating Gods: Religion as a Factor of Cultural (Un)Translatability”, in Religion: Beyond a Concept ed, Hent de Vries, Fordham University, 2008, pg 149.

[31] Roussou, Eugenia. “The Syncretic Religious Landscape of Contemporary Greece and Portugal: A Comparative Approach on Creativity Through Spiritual Synthesis”, in Invention of Tradition and Syncretism in Contemporary Religions: Sacred Creativity, eds Palmisano & Pannofino, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017 pg 161.

[32] As discussed by scholars such as Catherine Tully in “Researching the Past is a Foreign Country” and Mathias Nordvig in “Paganism Past and Ideas of Authenticity”.

[33] Palmisano, Stefania and Nicola Pannofino. “Conclusion”, in ‘Invention of Tradition and Syncretism in Contemporary Religions: Sacred Creativity’. eds, Palmisano & Pannofino, Palgrave Macmillan, 2017, pg. 224.

[34] Haeussler, pg. 172.

[35] Haeussler, pg. 173.

[36] Harrison, pg. 233.

[37] Grimes, Ronald L. Deeply Into The Bone: Re-Inventing the Rites of Passage, University of California Press, 200, pg. 209.

[38] Stewart, pg. 123.

[39] Stewart, pg. 164.

[40] Guss, David M. “Syncretic Inventions: ‘Idianness’ and the Day of the Monkey” in Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: The Politics of Religious Synthesis, eds. Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw. Routledge: New York, 2005, pg 137.

[41] Handler, Richard. Nationalism and the Politics of Culture in Quebec, Madison: WI University of Wisconsin Press, 1988, pg. 8.

[42] Ringgren, Helmer. “The Problems of Syncretism”. Scripta Instituti Donneriani Aboensis 30 (January 1, 1969), pg.

[43] Harrison, pg 16-17.

Categories: ACADEMIC ELITISM!!1+1, Anglo-Saxon, Community Thoughts, Fyrnsidu, Generalist Paganism, Germanic, Heathen Theology, Heathenry, Polytheism, Theology, Thoughts

Tagged: Academic Heathenry, Heathen, Heathenry, Pagan, Paganism, Religion, Syncretism

“Post-Recon”? What happens next?

Marc

Posted on May 23, 2020

Thanks to the GPL. You grumps know who you are.

Contemporary Western polytheism, which broadly and most accurately described as a revivalist movement of the themes, ethos and beliefs, and ritualistic practices of pre-Christian religious identities makes use of some manner of methodology in order to build a cohesive foundation for further practice. Within Paganism this methodology is, perhaps unoriginally, known as “reconstructionism”, which I have in the past defended as a process of accruing and interpreting information to be employed, whether in personal or communal practice. At times it has been portrayed as a separate religious “tradition” or “denomination”, with people claiming they ”are a reconstructionist, not a (typically, but not always) Wiccan”. The process often gets used as a purity test for what is characterized and typified as the “most correct” practice, with the implicit assumption that there can only be a singular end-point to be attained.

This later point has even given rise to some people proudly declaring themselves to be “not-reconstructionist”!

One of the biggest advocacies within Contemporary Paganism which I have tried to engage in has been clarifying the “process of reconstruction” over the “belief of reconstruction”. An emphasis on the latter leads to an unnatural weight placed on the historic fact and a near sacrosanct veneration of the historic material, which I had also previously discussed in Episode IV of the Plough-Share (it’s still your fault that name is a pun, and no, I’m never going to let it go!). An emphasis on the former aspect of reconstruction, well, this is what gives us the tools which we can use to collectively sift through layers of historic strata for our nuggets of insight, which we can then apply to what hopefully become living, breathing religious traditions of varying types.

I heavily disagree with the notion of linear development within religion (that is the way to Hegel), but it’s pointless to argue against the broad themes of action-reaction developments within the wider Pagan history. A very rough timeline can be found in my discussion of Paganism as a multi-generational effort (and a greater, Heathen specific, history survey can be found at Lauren and Ben’s podcast Heathen History), but we can reiterate a few specific points here:

Ignoring the philosophical fraternal Druidic orders, contemporary Paganism began with coven-based initiatory traditions.
“Open” traditions spawned years after that, in reaction to those closed traditions. We see the first real inklings and attempts at developing non-Wiccan or Wiccanate identities, again, as a response to under-representation or wider dissatisfaction and a growing New Age movement. Eventually, open traditions resulted in the broad notions of self-initiated / solitary practices. This was a response to make practices more accessible and lead to the relative explosion of Pagan popularity post-Satanic Abuse Panic.
Reconstructionist movements evolved and gained steam, especially with the development of greater networks of information and a wider interconnectedness. This was largely leveraged as a reaction to the growing sense of eclecticism with open/self-initiated practices and the enforced commodification of Wicca.

For a long time reconstructionism has been interpreted as a specific “denomination” of Pagans who were trying to be as historic as possible. This impression lead to mischaracterizations by both external observers and internal participants – the idea that this was akin to living history or reenactment and that these practices needed to be extricated with as much care from the history and replanted within the modern with no alterations, or otherwise as few alterations as possible. This became the governing image of reconstructionism when it was discussed, an exacting pendency which appeared to reduce the qualities of these religions – pietas, religio, worship – to a lesser status over historicity.

In some cases this is nearly successful, in this I am thinking of the attempts of various Roman groups to perform more exacting practices given their plethora of resources available from which to reconstruct their religious culture. However, even these always had a play-acting element to them, and several groups wrapping their identity up with the emulation of Roman civic processes spawned.

For the majority of other contemporary Western polytheists who do not fall in the sphere of peoples with literate histories, no such resource enables a wide majority of people to pick up and engage in anything remotely resembling their progenitor cultus. So reconstructionism in this case becomes a comparative practice in order to fill holes and develop theories which enable us to grasp a larger picture than any dedicated historic or literary remnants can paint.

Worst case, the source material is going to largely run out, or be tied to material behind prohibitive paywalls with a lack of accessibility to scholarship, making it effectively useless to laypeople. You’ve hit a wall with your reconstructionist source material and have a half-finished, ad hoc practice. A close comparison which I can think of is the falling-out-of-academic-favor that Stoicism had. As Katernia Ierodiakonou points out, the lack of prominent primary resources was, in part, responsible for the lack of interest in continued Stoic studies.

I feel this could be the same with many under-attested Paganisms.

Or, best case, you’ve laid a barebones foundation, but that’s all. It might have all the makings of a viable religion, but is not quite there yet. Or it might be viable in its own right, but it’s missing the “living” part of a living religious identity.

This is, actually, one of the reasons why I think there’s so many 101/entry-level guidebooks in publication and circulation – not only because it’s the most accessible to the broadest number of potential consumers but also due to there being no clear roadmap to entertain the idea of a future growth for the religious traditions. So it’s easier and, perhaps, more inspirational to go back and revisit older subjects.

To be fair, that is a necessary endeavor, as refinement and recalibration of ideas is always useful. But it’s not the purpose of this post.

The question that I am asking is: What comes after reconstruction?

Further questions I am asking are: Can such a thing be said to exist within a contemporary Pagan sphere? What does post-reconstruction look like? What does it mean to be “Post-Recon”?

Is it worth even discussing?

In this practice of action-reaction that appears to be a hallmark of Paganism, is a post-recon period inevitable in the sense that it reacts to the previous methodological “generation” and does it, as previous generations (both in Paganism and in academia) imply, constitute a rejection of the method of reconstructionism? And further, can any of us currently, rightly, claim the idea or mantle of being post-recon, especially those of us who are still considered to be “first generation” despite the amount of time we’ve put into developing our identities?

I think that we will get to a period where we are rightly considered “post-reconstructionist”, which would not act as a reaction to previous tendencies but continue to embrace research and exploratory inquests into the source materials. There will be a wall that many polytheistic religious traditions hit, but the idea that reconstructionism is the end goal of the contemporary polytheistic project must necessarily change.

As with many other experiences in life, I believe that if one stops learning they will wither, and my approach to religious identity is no different.

I very often think that there is a not-insignificant group of people who are attracted to reconstructionism and its applications to Western polytheism because it expresses an intellectualist challenge for them. It’s a challenge which can pass the time and be busy, a challenge for them to direct their energies in areas that may be under-developed or be an extension of previous interests, a challenge to uncover or argue new points of view, and it is in these challenges that their energies are often poured, with less emphasis on due faith and the enactment of religion.

I am speaking from personal experience here, since my writings on religion and research into polytheistic paganism had their genesis in me trying to stay busy while developing my own views. But that “busyness” led me to where I am now: an active home cultus, a growing interest in theological and philosophical reasonings, the advocation of identity building, realignments of effort, etc.

But where does the winding down of the reconstructionist project fit in the wider discussion of polytheistic paganism in the West? Is it something that just disappears and organic growth and development takes over? Toss the seeds to the winds and hope for the best?

I don’t think that’s the best way to approach it. Contemporary Western polytheisms and paganisms need stewards to protect and cultivate them, because of the pressures exerted upon them by external religious and secular forces. Globalized information exchange facilitates the exposure to new ideas or makes it easier to engage with them, and there is never going to be one uniform religion of whichever polytheistic practice we’re speaking of (like Heathenry). Thankfully, no polytheistic Nicene Creed or any other form of ecumenical council to establish doctrine, but the trade off is purposefully cultivating an identity as new conditions or situations emerge in an organic group.

Reconstructionist Jews have a saying, “The past gets a vote, not a veto”, which I have come to adore, and I feel that needs to be embraced more widely in polytheistic reconstructionism.

Post-Reconstructionism is going from a process of foundation building, of the reconstruction of the religions as best as possible to a general process of renovation. A friend brought this up in discussion, where Post-Recon should necessarily go full circle. Not back to where we’ve started with regards to reconstructing religions, but the essence and vitality of those religions being encapsulated in a new millennium of practice and worship.

History has had three concepts which I feel could be employed here, although taken out of context. Throughout the course of post-Roman Europe, the concepts of renovātiō (renewal), resitutiō (restitution), and reparātiō (restoration) were put forward by various government polities in order to contextualize their attempts to restore the essence of the Roman imperial state

Perhaps we can say that we’re going from reconstructionism to a process of renovation, or more accurately engaging in a form of renovātiō. Renovātiō (renewal) and its related concepts of resitutiō (restitution) and reparātiō (restoration) were employed throughout the course of history, largely in the context of the idea of the restoration of the Roman imperial state and the virtues which it allegedly espoused. It does not really have much to do with paganism as a whole.

But I feel that it serves our purposes to discuss an application of them for our uses here. Not, of course, as an application of Roman themes to the whole of polytheism (unless, you know, you’re into that), but the idea behind them.

I view these themes along with reconstruction or, if you’ll indulge a bit of Latin pretension, perhaps recōnstructiō, as a holistic totality and broadly reaching approach that we need to take with regards to our religious identities. We have engaged in and will be continuing to engage in recōnstructiō, the reconstruction and foundation laying of our religious identities and, as written above, I believe that this will be an ongoing process.

We must then collectively begin our processes of renovātiō, renewing the virtues and lifeblood of our religious paradigms through individualization, group engagement, and social views. We must engage in resitutiō, some manner of restitution to the world around us, the numinous and the ethereal, for though we are independent beings we are still products of a system that has eschewed propriety for this world and our gods. And we must reach and have as our goal reparātiō, the restoration of our religions in a self-sufficient, vibrant, and living groupings of entities that recognizes the worth of the world around us, the gods themselves, and seeks to better the relationships between humanity and the other world(s).

Are these checklists? No, we can’t look at a list and decide that “yep, we’ve reached resitutiō status! Good for us!”. Instead it’s a multifaceted approach towards some beneficial end that those of us who act as public pagans, ambassadors for our faiths, or theologians must necessarily account for and reach towards. There is a need to plan for the future which I often do not see being discussed in various circles. Admittedly, I am not privy to the inner workings of such dialogue, but I firmly believe that this is a group effort and we should endeavor to prop up like-minded individuals and their religious exercises.

Am I saying there aren’t people or groups that are engaging in these processes? No. But collectively, it must be considered.

I feel that accepting that individuality, contemporaneous development, and regionally specific interpretations is necessarily the way of the future, and not all encompassing, bounded-togetherness of national-spanning initiatives or strict doctrinal bonds between people so geographically distinct. Just as our religions in history were not codified and were mutable, so too are the modern descendants of them. We can play to those wonderful varied strengths, assisted by our collective historic hindsight.

I do think that we need to discuss the idea of a “Post-Recon:” status, because we’re reaching a saturation point where it will be inevitable to do without.

Renovātiō deōrum pāgānōrum has a wonderful ring to it, doesn’t it?

Categories: Community Thoughts, Fyrnsidu, Generalist Paganism, Germanic, Heathen Theology, Heathenry, Northern Tradition, Not-Quite-Northern, Polytheism, Theology

Tagged: Heathen, Heathenry, Pagan, Paganism

Blōstmfrēols

Marc

Posted on March 29, 2020

Categories: Uncategorized

Retrospectives, Thoughts, Views: Paganism, Heathendom, Polytheism, and the Future

Marc

Posted on December 21, 2019

Whelp. The second decade of the 21^st century has drawn to a close. I expect there will be a number of these retrospective posts coming up within Contemporary Pagan blogging circles. We’ve seen an immense diversification and explosion within those circles in the past decade, and an entire generation of new Pagans has come of age in that time. For my part, we’ve seen an expansion and dedication (although the last two years may not seem like much) in writing, consolidation of theme, forays into alternative methods of information dissemination, and the establishment of foundations of growth for other people to use as a reference (should they desire to do so!).

Communally, torches have been passed – some to the good and some to the bad – and we’re in a more secure state regarding our online representation (although public representation still is lacking). With new technological platforms, the continued growth of social media usage, and ever-increasing connectivity, we’re able to collaborate like never before. r/Pagan has surpassed over 70,000 subscribers since I became “top mod”, and that casual interest in Paganism is growing, seemingly, like never before.

But with the benefits of technology comes all the problems associated with it, beyond the innate toxicity of non-personal social media.

The world is currently shuddering with tumultuous and chaotic energies, with the rise of dangerous ideological forces finally stepping into the accepting brightness of day, and the world seems to be on a precipice of complete disaster. The Right surges, the Left withers, and the Centre appears to be accepting of an ever-tightening noose of inequity and social, (and seemingly) amoral depravity cinching around their necks. The climate fails, wildfires and “once in a century” storms rage, and all around the world a minority of people are digging up the valuables for their own coffers, while damning their children and grandchildren to poverty and strife. And it all keeps trickling down to us.

We’ve seen Pagan initiatives come and go, and major voices have passed beyond this world into the next and, with their passing, in many instances we’ve seen their transgressions and problematic views appearing to light. Abuse is, at the least, more willing to be spoken about in the open air, despite defenders of those characters tightening their ranks. While we no longer allow abusers to remain unnamed under the guise of ‘tradition’ or ‘solidarity’, we have seen that today’s Pagan circles (increasingly) lack the immunity from predatory depredations of abusers, demagogues, and aspiring cult-leaders.

Identities, traditions, and practices have been flashpoints, with concerns of negative appropriation, irreverent representation, and the ‘right’ of practice.

Polytheistic identity, in at least my experience, was one of the hot button issues of the past decade. We saw the polytheistic schism attempt to take hold through dissatisfaction with the Wiccan and Wiccanate orientation of the wider Pagan community, with new initiatives pushing reconstructionist methodology into the spotlight. The diversification of polytheistic ethnocultural identity (not to be confused with intrinsic ethnic ties) has exploded with various traditions gaining a firm foothold through new sources of communication (ever-increasing social medias, Discord, etc.). From this, we saw Polytheist Leadership Conference, and the Many Gods West conventions, the growth of Polytheist.com, and the growth of regional identity in terms of establishing a relationship with the divine.

Of course, there is death as well: the announcement of Pantheacon’s end, Witches & Pagans shutting down, Polytheist.com’s withering, Dun Brython ceasing, and a bevy of other false starts and aborted projects. All things pass. We’re more well equipped than most to understand that as a religious grouping, I feel.

We’ve also seen a growth of the marginalization of polytheistic identity within Contemporary Pagan circles, with the advent of multiple platforms of atheistic and anti-theistic rhetoric who continually believe that they have the right – if not the obligation – to edge us out of our own religious housing. What’s worse is that this is continuing apace. We have individuals who, quite literally, are attempting to redefine what it means to be polytheist, what it means to have a view of a pluralistic nature of divinity, in order to hedge out and shout down people who they believe to be problematic (theists). This is on top of other voices drawing baseless comparisons between polytheist theology and belief to ideological cancers, or otherwise using the belief of polytheism as a litmus test of acceptable associations.

And that’s nothing to say of the ire of non-Pagan anti-theists who are becoming increasingly aware of our voice and existence and using inflammatory rhetoric not unlike the kind which we see galvanizing attacks on other vulnerable populations. And it’s only going to get worse, when this blatant disrespect is allowed to become the norm.

Heathenry? Woof. Where to begin with that one. The AFA finally shedding the vestiges of attempted decency with the whole passing of McNallen from leadership, leading to the creation of Declaration 127. The Troth jettisoning old members because they reveal themselves to be Islamophobes. Just…everything…to do with TAC. Heathen Talk coming, and going. It’s been an eventful decade. But it’s not been a totally negative one, not by a long shot.

Heathendom has expanded, starting to embrace an attitude towards reconstructionism that does not shy away from innovation in the contemporary sense, in an effort to move away from the stagnation that has periodically cropped up in the past decade. More people are coming to Heathenry, in my experience, without being either Wiccan or Asatru to begin with, which requires altering the culture and the presentation of the religion to be more accommodating to the fact that we’re not all Norse focused.

Alliances have been forged between traditions to pull together and work on knowledge. Toutâ Galation, Thia Frankisk Aldsido, Lārhūs Fyrnsida, Ērsidu, and so many more (really, I need to update my links, still waiting on a good site for Norse Heathenry, though) have communications between each other in order to flesh out our respective religious practices. The Troth is in a good place to start reorganizing (from an outsiders perspective), rescinding pointless bans and addressing problematic views within their organization. While I am not convinced that national organizations of that type are wholly necessary, I do not wish to see something so long-lived just putter out. Sites like The Longship have created a new type of accessibility for people interested in Heathenry, and have inspired (at least) calls to form similar sites for other religions. Open Halls has lead the fight for military recognition of Heathenry and Asatru.

And Anglo-Saxon Heathenry, my pet project and the place where I hang my “hat”, has grown quite a bit in the past decade. Wodgar has a great retrospective from earlier this year (which I reblogged), that highlights a number of points that I think people are starting to see – that innovation is not something to be feared, that holistic comparative works are required for what we do, or else we’ll simply have a halfassed and bland caricatures or imitations of Norse Heathenry with some Anglo-Saxon veneers. There’s a growing acceptance that there can’t be a monolith or orthodoxy of a singular Anglo-Saxon Heathen identity, just as there can’t be one for Heathenry at large. And while we absolutely have to deal with all the same problems that Paganism and Heathenry at large have to deal with (nationalist and fascist incursions and their attempts to appropriate the terms, symbols, and history that we have, along with shedding the vestiges of dangerous rhetoric and trying to excise potentially cancerous ideologies which have been implanted in the past two decades) we have more voices willing to stand up to stop these problems and work through them.

For my part, I am not going anywhere, even if the past two years (with the life changes I have had) has seen a reduction in publication. You’re not getting rid of me that easy. I’ll continue to grow, to write, to theorize and experiment, and try to work my practice into something longer lasting.

So before I get busy with the next two weeks, the last two weeks, of this decade, I will end this here. There are challenges, there are trials, and the world appears excessively grim, with a long, rough road ahead. To that I will say, “Confragosa in fastigium dignitatis via est.”

To my readers: Glad Geol, Happy New Year.

So long Twenty-Teens, and thanks for all the fish.

Categories: Blog Business, Community Thoughts, Conversational, Generalist Paganism, Germanic, Heathenry, Larhus, Polytheism, Thoughts

Tagged: Heathen, Heathenry, Pagan, Paganism

A Mōdraniht Bēd

Marc

Posted on December 8, 2019

Background, Candles, Tea Lights, Candlelight, Religion

Ealdmōdru and Mōdra, those to whom I give praise,
Who within me persist,
through breath,
through action,
through being
Those who share with me bonds of kith and kinship,
Mothers, Grandmothers, ancestral dead,
Protectors, prosperity-weavers, caretakers,
To you I pray on this holiest, darkest, night.
To you I call, and make place for, and venerate.

Heorþmōdoru, Festermodru, Wyrdwebbes, Hǣlugifu, all,
Hear of me and mine, look kindly upon us,
On my home, on those who I love,
And on those who I call friend.
Give to us the wealth or your knowledge,
Health and wellbeing of heart and mind,
Bounty of safety, and prosperity, and sustenance.

Continue to nurture us, to support us, to protect us,
As long been your way,
Holiest mothers guard and guide us, lead us,
With your voices, share with us your wisdom,
in these times of darkness and danger.

(Title shamelessly borrowed from Wodgar)

Categories: Ancestors, Anglo-Saxon, Fyrnsidu, Germanic, Hearth Cult, Heathen Theology, Heathenry, Northern Tradition, Shrines and Holy Places, Super Fun Holiday Things, Theology, Thoughts

Tagged: Anglo-Saxon, Gifting Cycle, Heathen, Heathenry, Old English, Pagan, Paganism, Prayer, Religion, Ritual, Sacred

A Winterfylleþ Rite — Sundorwīc

Marc

Posted on November 6, 2019

As is often the case with De Temporum Ratione, the information provided by Bede regarding Winterfylleth is decidedly scant and provides us little to work with in terms of reconstruction. Bede’s brief description of this month is recorded thusly: “Antiqui Anglorum populi […] annum totum in duo tempora, hiemis et aestatis dispertiebant, sex menses […] […]

via A Winterfylleþ Rite — Sundorwīc

Categories: Ancestors, Anglo-Saxon, Community Thoughts, Fyrnsidu, Germanic, Hearth Cult, Heathen Theology, Heathenry, Larhus, Northern Tradition, Polytheism, Super Fun Holiday Things, Theology, Thoughts, Uncategorized

Tagged: Anglo-Saxon, Heathen, Heathenry, Pagan, Paganism, Religion, Ritual

A Retrospective in Anglo-Saxon Heathendom

Marc

Posted on September 3, 2019

I very rarely reblog other posts, but this is a good, important one, written by my bro. I encourage everyone to read it.

Categories: Uncategorized

Indifference of Convenience? Pagan Community Silence on Mauna Kea

Marc

Posted on July 21, 2019

When it comes to protesting development over sacred sites, the wider Pagan community (online as it is) tends to be relatively vociferous. With the Dakota Access Pipeline and the conflict which erupted at Standing Rock over that situation, writers of Paganism unleashed a flurry of information, coordination, and protests. A search of the “Dakota Access Pipeline” in the archives of the Wild Hunt reveals (as of 7.21.19) eighteen distinct post hits, from link roundups, to editorials and columns of Pagan involvement, or otherwise community notes. On Patheos Pagan, numerous known bloggers wrote about the fight over the sacred space which the oil robber barons would bulldoze through, pollute, and tarnish with their unmitigated and unnecessary (scientifically and morally) project. Witches & Pagans has a clear seven hits, if one were to utilize Google’s algorithm to do a cursory search, writers invoking the Cailleach to protest, advocating solidarity with Standing Rock, and other such acts.

Peter Dybing said it was one of those moments that “demand we stand for what is right”.

Perhaps fueled by the coverage the nation had on the protests, Contemporary Pagans were likewise enamored, willing to take up metaphorical (and often metaphysical) arms in order to support what they believed was right. In this, it was morally and ethically clear for Pagans to take a stand: Radical Pagans could say that this was a feature, not a bug, of the system of economics we’re smothered under, Environmentalist Pagans or Nature Worshiping Pagans could clearly argue that this was a violation of the sanctity of the Earth, and Polytheistic Pagans of every stripe could stand behind the indigenous tribal peoples who were struggling under another, continuing, form of colonization.

Three years later, another planned defilement and desecration of sacred land is playing out, with protests erupting, government overreach in the establishment of states of emergency and the deployment of militarized police, SWAT, and (probably) eventual National Guard deployment. Native voices are being run roughshod over, just as they were at Standing Rock. Peaceful Protestors are being arrested, just as they were at Standing Rock. Sacred land is being purposefully stolen by Western interests, just as they were at Standing Rock.

Except this time, the wider Pagan community is all but silent.

There is a fight going on for the holy mountain of Mauna Kea, Hawai’i, already desecrated by the establishment of several observatories, given the conditions which make it ideal (although not by much) for the observation of the night sky. For the past five years, arguments, protests, and lawsuits have been levied to try to stop the construction of a new, thirty meter telescope which would necessitate removing literal stories worth of dirt and mountain for its construction, located right in the heart of indigenous, sacred, conservation land. This is the site for the honored dead, a site of sanctity and worship, and spiritual well-being.

The wider Pagan news networks or active blogging sites have not reported on this, in any great capacity. The Wild Hunt, Contemporary Paganism’s largest news outlet, has not reported on this since 2014. Witches and Pagans, likewise, has not mentioned it since then. No blogger or author on Patheos has reported on this since 2017. There is no word of this on Pagan Bloggers. No word on this on Gods & Radicals. The so-called Humanistic Pagans are, perhaps predictably, silent.

Independent practitioners that fall under Contemporary Paganism are only just finding out about this struggle, through Twitter, or tumblr, or other social media sites. There are no calls to action from the Pagan bloggers with large followings, no drives to join in the protests or to assist by signal boosting, donating, or offering long-distance support. It takes accounts like @lakotalaw to get the information out.

Why? Where are the cries of outrage? Of solidarity? How is it that there is little enough being said among Pagan circles?

Distance, perhaps. Hawai’i is a lot further away than North and South Dakota, and a lot more isolated. With the lack of news coverage, people may not even be aware.

Efficiency, maybe. Social media networks like Facebook groups and pages, Twitter accounts, tumblr notes and reblogs, all enable people to reach more, faster, than contemporary static blog posts.

Convenience? Conviction? Intent? There is the concern.

With DAPL there was a clear “enemy”, something that all but a minority of Pagan voices can point to: Corporate depredations attacking a marginalized group of people for clear financial gain, utilizing an extension of the United States Army, a 21st century variant of 19th century ‘solutions’.

A telescope being erected on a mountain top, half a world away, ostensibly capable of ushering in new cosmic insights and scientific knowledge, with the majority of Contemporary Paganism being educated and supportive of secular education over faith-based denials?

The choice here should be clear.

Instead, the silence in this case is deafening. And it is, perhaps, ultimately damning, in its hypocrisy.

With their silence, Pagans are showing themselves to be just as hypocritical, and as colonial, as the people they’ve previously raised their voices against – willing to look the other way when the auspices of “progress” and “scientific merit” appear, regardless of that selfsame progress trampling over the rights of people. There is no natural dovetail of political or practical views here, as there was with DAPL, where the support for these indigenous rights and beliefs and their right of self-determination enabled them to express their anti-corporate, anti-big business, anti-oil views.

The silence for Mauna Kea shows that their support was seemingly as a thin veneer with no backing, as morally and ethically repugnant as the shovels that would continue to pierce the holy ground of these native people for “progress”, bereft of virtue of conviction. The silence shows that these people stand with those who would view indigenous beliefs as superstition, unworthy of survival in the modern age, dragged forcibly under the wheels of progress, or otherwise swatted aside as an annoyance. That their beliefs are inconsequential.

This is a moment that demands we stand for what is right, just as much as it was three years ago.

Sign the petition.

Donate to the bail fund, if you can.

Donate the Mauna Medic Healers HUI, if you can.

Find out what the Hawai’i Unity and Liberation and the Hawaiian-Environmental Alliance require, or how best to assist from where you are.

Share these links. Talk about it. Bring awareness to this. Don’t be silent, even if you cannot do anything else. Sending a Tweet costs nothing.

Stand with Mauna Kea.

“If evil thou knowest, as evil proclaim it,

And make no friendship with foes.”

Havamal 127, Bellows Translation

Categories: Community Thoughts, Controversy!!1!, Conversational, Generalist Paganism, Heathenry, Polytheism, Regionalism, Shrines and Holy Places, Theology, Thoughts

Tagged: Mauna Kea, Paganism, Religion, Sacred, Sacred Defense

Book Review: Sacred Gifts: Reciprocity and the Gods

Marc

Posted on July 6, 2019

I periodically – very infrequently – write Pagan, Heathen, and other Western polytheistic book reviews. Typically, the books I read which inform my writing here are academic in nature, so I do not feel the need to do reviews for them. I must also admit that I am out of touch with the plethora of pan-Pagan publication (say that five times fast), and I rarely purchase the works of my colleagues.

It is for that very same reason that I am writing a review of a near four-year-old book. Why? I absolutely forgot that it existed until this week. It’d been on my list when I first heard about it being published, and then my life went absolutely topsy-turvey. I only recently saw a suggestion for it on my Amazon that a light went back on and I remembered it was a thing.

My apologies to Rev. Thomas.

Without further ado.

Sacred Gifts: Reciprocity and the Gods

Date of Publication: 2015

Publisher: ADF Publishing

Author: Rev. Kirk S. Thomas

Sacred Gifts: Reciprocity and the Gods (2015), by Kirk S. Thomas of Ár nDraíocht Féin, a Druid Fellowship, presents a broad survey across the breadth of pre-Christian, Indo-European religious beliefs and focuses on the act of gift-giving within what is ultimately a divine context. Deriving itself not as a commentary on any other Contemporary Pagan publication but, instead, presenting and synthesizing an academic study into a wide scope Pagan context, Thomas’ book distills both original and secondary source material into what amounts to a functional introduction to what is often a confusing system of reciprocity and relationships between humanity and the divine. Thomas’ utilization of Vedic, Greek, Norse, Roman, and Irish source material throughout the chapters of his book highlights the religious commonalities that these peoples had regarding the act of giving a gift, however distantly they were related.

While ultimately geared towards, and including features which may be more appropriate to, practitioners and initiates of the wider sphere of Ár nDraíocht Féin (Neodruidism, at large), a solid portion of the book contains useful, worthwhile reading material for beginning Pagans who seek to expand their understanding of the gifting cycle as it can be interpreted from the past. It clearly delineates the myriad cultural expressions of the phenomenon of gifting, settling it within a Pagan (not THE Pagan) cosmogonic expression.

This book introduces and covers concepts such as the sacred-profane dichotomy, ideas of gifting as systemic recreation of the universe (cosmogony), the axis-mundi of varying pre-Christian pagan peoples, and other varying types of gifts (votives, foodstuffs, etc.) as well as their acts of offering (libations, burning, drowning, etc.), which are all supported by archaeological, literary, and legal precedents. These precedents are provided in a concise manner, drawing an unmistakable conclusion that this practice was, indeed, pan-Indo-European.

Of particular value in the this discussion is the fallacious concept of gifting being equivalent to what Thomas, among other writers, calls the “Great Vending Machine in the Sky”. This concept, so common among both theistic and atheistic Western thinkers, is a theme which belies the cultural ignorance that has been accepted regarding what was once the fundamental paradigm of reciprocity within religious engagement. That Thomas addresses it speaks to the recognition of these wider forces that practitioners of contemporary polytheistic religions must grapple with. That he directly calls it out is only beneficial for people who may not be able to articulate their concerns, and can only aid in dispelling false notions of polytheistic worship as simple transactions or business-like dealings.

However, for more seasoned researchers within Pagan studies, this book will not offer much in the way of new material for consideration. It is very much an introductory survey, attempting to fit a wide paradigm of pan-Indo-European views into a mere 222 pages (including the index). This fact necessarily leaves much to be desired with the individual cultures mentioned, each requiring their own monograph for further expansion. Its brevity precludes more unique manifestations of the gifting cycle within these religions, which may be more desirable by a specialist or experienced practitioner. Further, the latter section of the book includes rituals which are ADF-specific, which can be discarded at the whim of the reader.

One criticism of this work is the lack of comparison between traditional gifting cycles from its historic context, compared to the attitudes which inform the contemporary societal views that continue to foster a lack of respect for this institution. Thomas details a section of his book titled “The Great Heresy“, where he attempts to explore the nature of “Abrahamic” (really, Christian and Islamic), submission with regards to divinity, versus the competing gifting cycles of the polytheistic religions. It is scant, perhaps by design.

It would have been better to expound on Max Weber’s views of Do Ut Des being that of a “formalistic ethic” and not any true belief [Weber, 1963], or of Pauline theology’s fundamental positioning of this very same view as inferior to the unilateral concept of Christian grace. Approaching the criticisms of the gifting cycle and identifying and deconstructing them can only combat the unease with returning to this traditional mode of worship, and in doing so the groundwork can be laid for a more concerted effort of dismantling these indoctrinated views.

While this book covers the act of gifting in broad strokes, by necessity, it cannot include what is wholly appropriate (or inappropriate) for each particular religion. In this we can think of the particular value of the sacrifice (libation) of wine in various Mediterranean religions, of being one of the most important acts of offering which can be enacted.

Readers must be made aware that this book cannot be a ‘one stop shop’ regarding this topic, and further study depending on the chosen ethno-cultural paradigm will absolutely be required. Thomas’ work presents a rough road map for those individuals curious for a crash course in this style of religious veneration, connecting various dots of disparate religious perspectives which we often group under modern Paganism. This single book cannot be expected to give us an exacting and comprehensive account throughout that will satisfy all readers.

What Sacred Gifts does is lay out a starting point for those curious as to the precedents of the gifting cycle, outside of what might be considered an unnecessarily restrictive “reconstructionist” view. Thomas doesn’t preach from the pulpit about maintaining unerring and constraining historical purity, which may turn some hopeful readers who want an easily accessible, yet rigorously enforced paradigm away. Of the non-Wiccan, non-Wiccanate introductory Pagan books, Sacred Gifts: Reciprocity and the Gods should find a prominent home on any beginner’s bookshelf.

Categories: Book Reviews, Community Thoughts, Generalist Paganism, Polytheism, Theology

Tagged: ADF, Ár nDraíocht Féin, Book Review, Cosmos, Gifting Cycle, Heathen, Heathenry, Pagan, Paganism, Religion

A Case for ‘Syncretism’ in Modern Heathenry

Marc

Posted on February 3, 2019

Author’s Note: Due to the growing length of this piece, it will be subdivided into further posts detailing this topic. Consider this ‘part one’, with more Heathen-specific interests forthcoming.

This entry deals with one of the most contentious topics of religious identity as it is approached by reconstructionist polytheistic paganism, especially Heathendom and reconstructionist Germanic practices – the issue of syncretism. As Contemporary Paganism and the reconstructionist polytheisms establish their own identity, grow, and eventually diversify with regards to internal developments a discussion as to what is and what is not syncretism and whether it is allowable within ‘Heathenry’ will invariably occur with greater frequency. Indeed, questions regarding the role and appropriateness of syncretism in the face of what is considered “traditional” approaches to religiosity and religious identity as it pertains to our collective understanding of Heathenry (and, whether it is proper to engage in syncretic practices and still be considered “Heathen”) are already common.

The discussion of syncretism is necessarily multifaceted as it engages with numerous other debatable topics, each warranting their own dedicated surveys. These are topics like the intersection of cultural and religious appropriation in modern Pagan practice, religious practice and the idea of purity (or ethical authenticity) of those religious traditions, and the very understanding of the definition of ‘religion’ itself as both a useful term and as a human institution. We find that these topics are inextricably tied together and experience the same pitfalls of understanding due to the language which is employed with regards to the religious understandings that Western polytheists are exposed to; these terminological traditions are steeped in Western peculiarities and the discussion of these facets run afoul of inexact definitions which are so often mirrored when non-monotheistic religious traditions are discussed.

As with the definition of ‘religion’, there can be no clear or linear narrative to designating the totality of this concept. This entry will necessarily touch upon and explore the subjects mentioned above, although it does so with a focus on the incidence of “syncretism” and accusations thereof as it applies to Heathenry. A further case will be made that Heathen identity as a religious subculture is naturally indebted to practices of syncretisation which are employed, both intentionally and unintentionally, to establish its sense-of-being beneath a theologically hostile system of perception, belief, and practice. Since its inception, Heathenry has been a naturally syncretized piece and the very historic continuum of rich cultures and beliefs which it draws its inspiration from were likewise.

Such a detailed historic survey is beyond the scope of this writing, but one would show a variety of attributes to the (re)distribution of the meaning of what it is to be and what it is to engage in a syncretic practice. We invariably find that syncretism is intrinsically tied to political positions; positions regarding the maintenance and the role of the religious act, at both the institutional and deeply personal levels. This political position has been the case since the beginning of the concept of ‘syncretism’, and modern authors engage in a ‘typology of phenomena’ which are associated with varying stages and types of syncretic practices, including the phenomena of ‘amalgamation’, ‘symbiosis’, ‘coherence’, ‘identification’, and other such terms [1].

At its most simple definition, syncretism pertains to the melding of ideas. Wiktionary’s definition is clearer, detailing it as “the (attempted) reconciliation or fusion of different systems of beliefs.” [2]. Etymologically, it is derived from Latin’s syncretismus, directly from the Ancient Greek συγκρητισμός (sunkrētismós), and is attested in Plutarch’s On Brotherly Love. This is an important point in the foundation of the concept of syncretism, where Plutarch writes:

“…imitating in this point, at least, the practice of Cretans, who, though they often quarreled with and warred against each other, made up their differences and united when outside enemies attacked; and this it was which they called “syncretism.”” [3]

This is the foundation of the wider concept of syncretism – an understanding between peoples based on the ideas of reconciliation, alignment, and mutual agreement to a common good of the parties involved. From the roots of a strategically beneficial brotherhood between peoples and their belief systems we can see a deeply political act of contact and intercultural exchange emerge [4]. The recognition of this innate importance to humanity is reflected through modern anthropological classifications, placing the importance of syncretism as a fundamental facet of human interaction [5].

Syncretism is a social-scientific term for a thought process rising questions with regards to roots, influences, and contacts, and how these borrowings are to be used and interpreted by a group [6]. It is a question within virtually every culture or religion, as all cultures have changed over time and adopted exogenous elements and ideas.

This is the foundation of the concept of syncretism – an understanding of peoples based on the ideas of reconciliation, alignment, and allegiance to a common good of those parties involved. From these roots of a strategically beneficial brotherhood between peoples and their belief systems we see a deeply political act of contact and reconciliation emerge [7]. Modern anthropologists place the importance of syncretism in religio-cultural exchanges as a fundamental facet of human interaction, being an admixture of ideas which is treated as intrinsic to the cultural condition of humanity [8]. That is as virtually every culture (except in the most extreme cases, as uncontacted Indigenous tribes) or religion is exposed to alternating ideas, it is in the human nature to interact with them, developing and syncretising in doing so. In the end, the result is a changed experience.

Two particular points in Western dialogue transformed the relatively positive (or at least, neutral) connotation of ‘syncretism’ which are rooted in both the problematic interpretations stemming from the period of the Reformation, as well as that of the 19th century. From the time of Plutarch until that of George Calixtus in the 17th century, the term was fairly well regarded. After this period it was used as a theological bludgeon in the promulgation of Protestant theologies, with its detractors claiming that its use amounted to an advance of “purposeful confusion” or religious identity and an injection of religious ideas that clouded the purity of faith and religion [9]. In terms of the studies of Heathenry it should be wholly unsurprising that Protestant rhetoric and residual interpretative infection are to blame with the conflation of syncretism as a problematic endeavor.

A final phase in the development of these negative connotations is relegated to the latter half of the 19th century, where the pejorative meaning of “syncretism” was further expanded. In the case of Classicists at the time (those studying Roman and Hellenistic religions), the search for a “pure” religious example brought about further connotations of “disorder” and even a reduction to a “lowest common denominator” [10]. Plutarch’s solidarity and mutually beneficial relationship is treated as a weapon of assimilation by an enemy power through further treatment as an extension of a Roman imperialist strategy (again, attempting to slice to the core of a fictitious “pure” religion). Peter Schineller wrote that syncretism as a word “cannot be redeemed” [11] .

In effect syncretism has entered into popular and non-specific (non-anthropological) context with the connotations of deviancy through the use of Western Christo-academia, fueled by the perceptions of the execution of power over the beliefs and practices of others. The preference of academics to use Christian theology to distinguish between “good” and “bad” forms of syncretism remains couched in this non-specific discourse (As Robert Schreiter stated in 2011, in “Cosmopolitanism, hybrid identities, and religion”). Some scholars have gone so far as to integrate “syncretism” into their grand evolutionary scheme of religious development, treating it as a point towards monotheism in a biological model of religious growth and evolution, coinciding with the rhetoric of other ‘psychologists of religion’ (Welhausen, Hegel, etc.) [12]. While anthropologists, in a sense, have engaged in the rehabilitation of the term in order to bring it back to a more neutral perspective, other disciplines nevertheless appear to break the mold of the past four centuries of academic and theological opinion on the concept.

“Syncretism” becomes a problem when clerical authoritarianism and hierarchicalism becomes the de facto interpretation of religious truth, where everything running contrary to this notion of truth becomes a deviancy or degeneracy of its original form. Leveraging this mode of thinking can lead towards portrayal of any particular civilization and religion as a pure, sui generis phenomenon, excluding innately important (but nonetheless foreign) facets which aided in their genesis [13]. The dialogue of authors in Heathenry who promote such attempts at revisionist purification appear cut from the same ideological, intellectual cloth as those Classicists attempting to establish a bildung for their chosen culture – as Mueller did in the Introduction to a Science of Mythology (1825), and following in Herder and Fichte’s formulations of the relativism of cultures and national identities which generated an anti-Enlightenment form of nationalism. At the very worst, the stressing of Heathenry’s supposed religious purity and autochthonous nature mimes rather unfortunate racialist social rhetoric for which anything related to Germanic culture needs be wary of.

Bemoaning syncretism as some negative impact on a religio-cultural idea possesses within it a certain blindness and tone-deafness to the issues of power within any singular grouping of identities, and their struggle for extricating themselves from erasure into the wider cultural demographic. Likening syncretic movements wholesale to Cargo cults or millenarian pre-political movements of charismatic leaders (as in E.W. Mühlmann’s Rassen, Ethnien, Kulturen, 1964) casts particularly nativistic aspersions at what is a fundamental religious dialogue in a multi-religious environment; simply, it is patently difficult (if not self-defeatingly impossible) to avoid expressing identity without reference to ideas or rituals that have meaning in other religious groups [14].

If we are to take that culture does not exist, usually, within a vacuum and that culture and religious identities, mores, and practices do not arise totally from nothing (similar, perhaps, to the Buddhist concept of Pratītyasamutpāda, that nothing arises independently of others), then we can begin to see how a strictly anti-syncretist approach to Heathenry will do more harm than good. In further discussion we will engage in concepts of syncretism, of historic appropriations, and the positioning of contemporary Heathen practice and belief through a lens of syncretic understanding so as to develop a living identity that exists beneath the overculture of monotheistic values.

[1] Droogers, Andre, ‘Syncretism: The Problem of Definition, the Definition of the Problem’, in Dialogue and Syncretism: an Interdisciplinary Approach, eds. Gort, Vroom, Fernhout, Wessels, William B. Erdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI, 1989, pg. 14

[2] Wiktionary contributors, “syncretism”, Wiktionary, the Free Dictionary, https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=syncretism&oldid=49793444 (accessed January 8, 2019).

[3] Plutarch, ‘De Fraterno Amore’, published VI. Loeb 1939, trans. W. C. Helmbold, http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Moralia/De_fraterno_amore*.html (accessed, January 25, 2019).

[4] Shaw, Rosalind and Charles Stewart, “Introduction: problematizing syncretism” in Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: the Politics of Religious Synthesis, ed. Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw, Routledge: London, 1994, pg. 3.

[5] Shaw, Introduction, pg. 5.

[6] Stewart. Charles, “Syncretism as a dimension of nationalist discourse in modern Greece”, in Syncretism/Anti-Syncretism: the Politics of Religious Synthesis, ed. Charles Stewart and Rosalind Shaw, Routledge: London, 1994, pg. 120.

[7] Shaw, Introduction, pg. 3.

[8] Shaw, Introduction, pg. 5.

[9] Shaw, Introduction, pg. 4.

[10] Shaw, Introduction, pg. 10.

[11] Schineller, Peter, “Inculturation and syncretism: what is the real issue?,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 16, no. 2 (1992).

[12] Fabian, Johannes, Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Columbia University Press, 1984, pg. 9

[13] Stewart, “Syncretism”, pg. 120

[14] Roxborough, John, “Syncretism and Identity”, uploaded on academia.edu, accessed 01/31/19 http://www.academia.edu/4482341/Syncretism_and_Identity, pg. 1

Categories: ACADEMIC ELITISM!!1+1, Anglo-Saxon, Community Thoughts, Controversy!!1!, Fyrnsidu, Generalist Paganism, Germanic, Heathen Theology, Heathenry, History, Northern Tradition, Not-Quite-Northern, Polytheism, Theology, Thoughts

Tagged: Academic Heathenry, Heathen, Pagan, Paganism, Religion, Sacred, Syncretism

Anglo-Saxon Heathenry and Roman Polytheism

Syncretism and the Formation of Contemporary Heathen Religious Identity

Marc

Posted on June 24, 2020

“Post-Recon”? What happens next?

Marc

Posted on May 23, 2020

Blōstmfrēols

Marc

Posted on March 29, 2020

Retrospectives, Thoughts, Views: Paganism, Heathendom, Polytheism, and the Future

Marc

Posted on December 21, 2019

A Mōdraniht Bēd

Marc

Posted on December 8, 2019

(Title shamelessly borrowed from Wodgar)

A Winterfylleþ Rite — Sundorwīc

Marc

Posted on November 6, 2019

A Retrospective in Anglo-Saxon Heathendom

Marc

Posted on September 3, 2019

Indifference of Convenience? Pagan Community Silence on Mauna Kea

Marc

Posted on July 21, 2019

Book Review: Sacred Gifts: Reciprocity and the Gods

Marc

Posted on July 6, 2019

A Case for ‘Syncretism’ in Modern Heathenry

Marc

Posted on February 3, 2019