Now that paganism has survived its resurgence and established its credence with the various hues and shades within its loose boundaries, I think it’s time we blew away some of the romantic mists of time which obscure the details of ritual and practice to determine a more explicit doctrine.
To me, there are two very clearly defined paths within an individual’s and group’s faith; whether it be derived from, or a continuance of, a traditional source. If their faith and religious practices are deeply rooted not only within the folklore and cultural customs of their land and home, but also within personal traditions and family heritage, then how much should taken from the annals of culture and how much should be personal gnosis?
This balance is, at times, a precarious one. If a religion is based on traditional sources and practices which are detailed enough to give a comprehensive understanding of moralities and practices, then how far can personal influences be incorporated before the original structure is warped and the meaning, at best, tainted, and at worst, lost? Obviously we weren’t given an instruction book on ritual practices and what we do know is gleamed from age old writings which may have been written down by untrustworthy sources or by individuals with personal agendas which altered the details significantly. Within a historical based religion, are new and individual revelations allowed to be accepted part of common beliefs and practices? Is it acceptable for reconstructionist religions to grow, develop and envelop new ideas and adaptations or does this bring them into the "neo" group that so many adherents seem to be totally repulsed by?
To answer some of these questions we must look closely at how the facts have been presented to us. Various historical texts (Snorri Sturluson’s ‘Prose Edda’, for example) give us what are today, the closest, or most informed links to the beliefs and customs of long dead peoples and cultures. From gathering all the obtainable pieces of texts and accounts of these early inhabitants, we can hope to put together, at best, a disjointed picture of their society and beliefs.
But surely this cannot be enough to establish a faith system upon and ultimately a common religion? This is where mutual exchange of experiences and insights by "like-minded individuals" can begin to enrich the tapestry of beliefs. I’ve seen rituals taken from a reliable historical text and developed into a working practice for modern day rites. This in turn was passed on to other individuals and groups to be tried and improved upon, or utterly rejected as unreliable if seen fit. During the period from which we draw our inspiration mass media wasn’t a feature of everyday life. Deities were given different names in different areas, had different aptitudes and even, in one case, a different gender was recorded by early historians!
Much like today, when rituals grew in isolation they were very distinct ways of expressing a common theme. These in time may have been opened to a wider audience by travel and exchange or may have lived out their existence in isolation and ended without being recorded. So today, as we are rebuilding our ancestor’s beliefs and moralities it is only to be expected that a certain amount of personal interjection will be needed, and even expected, to retain a faith which is relevant and complimentary of modern living. We don’t live in wattle and daub houses anymore and we no longer have a high king. We are born of a very distinct culture and are upholding its values and beliefs as are ancestors did before us. But are we rediscovering it or are the gods revealing it to us, piece by intricate piece?
You can return to the the main page here
© Heathen Europe 2000 C.E.
Please do not repost without prior consent of author.