The Canard of "Pagan Fundamentalism" or Reconstructionists are meanies

I came across a recent blog post on a rather heavily trafficked Pagan webPortal decrying "Pagan Fundamentalists", speaking out against these fiendish ne'erdowells who seem more at home with the likes of Fred Phelps or Jerry Falwell than Cathbad or Amergin. I have had disagreements with this particular blogger in the past (won't link to her blog, but its pretty easy to find), and so such proclamations and prescriptions are not terribly surprising. Of note is the list of fundamentalist "tells", or if ___________, you may be a Pagan fundamentalist,

They are listed as follows:

• The belief that your engagement with deity–worship, perception and gnosis, interpretation of texts, magical work, etc.–is the correct form of engagement, and other forms are not only incorrect, but offensive to the deity and harmful to the practitioner;
• The belief that this form of engagement must be followed to the letter, with no aberrations or lapses, and must be kept pure no matter what;
• The belief that your role in religion is one of subservience, and you have no choice in the matter–that deities are your masters, and bad things will happen to you if you don’t obey them;
• The belief that gods do not evolve alongside human civilization; rather, they reached maturity at the time their myths were recorded, and it is your duty as a practitioner to adapt your worldview to their recorded sensibilities, no matter how archaic, irrelevant, or just plain wrong those sensibilities may seem;
• The belief that the age of myth-making is long over, and you are bound to the texts, stories, and practices that the deities revealed to your ancestors, which are perfect and complete.

The list reads, if not as a laundry list of recon-strawmen, pretty close to it (fleshed out by the rest of the blog), but lets look at each of them individually.

"There is only one right way, and it is my way, and you are doin' it wrong!"

If this comes across as a rejection of the very basic concept of orthopraxy, then congratulations you have a foundational understanding of a great deal of ancient, polytheistic religion. Orthopraxy (orthopraxis) is the concept that correct action (specifically in a ritualized context) is key in ones correspondences and interactions with the gods, far more so than correct belief (or orthodoxy). I personally have no problem with folks being creative and doing whatever it is they feel speaks to them on a spiritual level (all forms of cultural appropriation not withstanding). 

Where I draw the line, however, is when it comes to making the leap from personal practice to broader conclusions or claims which are supposedly drawn from cultural continuums or customs. This is the essential theme which is going to run throughout this particular post, but it is important enough to bear repetition. If you are going to be worshiping deities from a specific culture, than it is wise and respectful to understand that culture, and how those deities were worshiped in that culture. Despite what an infuriatingly high number of Pagans (and far less so with folks who identify as polytheists) seem to think, the gods are not generic, universal* forms and it is disrespectful to treat them as plug and play components of ones ritual or magical practice. Likewise it is problematic to adopt elements of a given cultural perspective, while ignoring the context or functionality of that particular element. Folkways and rituals are not neutral techniques do be divested of cultural trappings so that they may be utilized as "spiritual technologies". 

For folks of my ilk, that is to say polytheists who recognize that the gods and spirits of place are real beings, what you do and where you do it are vitally important. The places we live and the spaces we occupy are all shared with those beings; being aware and respectful of this is a foundational component of GRP and a number of other traditions. To not be concerned with the possibility of offending the gods or spirits of place shows a decidedly impious approach to worship and ritual. While I can appreciate the concern of "my way or the highway" forms of religion, the proviso which is missing from such accusations is that orthopraxy matters. Orthopraxy is not (or ought not be, outliers and all that) decided upon the basis of "I think this, so this is right!" but "Consensus teaches, tradition teaches". 

Which, again, is not to say that deference is automatically given to something because it is held to be traditional, but because there is a good reason to do so. There is a reason that traditional folkways have endured, and that is because they reinforce the worldview they stem from. The best traditions are based on sound foundations of ethics and ethos. Values like reciprocity, hospitality, honour and respect are all virtues which stem from communal perspectives where the community comes before the individual. This is anathema to modern, western and particularly American proclivities when it comes to the individual and the group. So, perhaps, this is why folks who do not see the value in a community based ethos but on individual gnosis alone have such a hard time with understanding the basis of orthopraxy and confuse and conflate it with self righteous spirituality.

"We have no room for your filthy ritual contamination!"

This is really just piggybacking for the sake of being a pedant, but all too often this concept of "pure, untainted ritual" is yet another favourite recon-strawman. I've yet to encounter polytheistic folks who are under the delusion that they are practicing some pure, unbroken line of ritualized devotion where syncretism has never happened (neoWiccans or Wiccanesque folks on the other hand...).

What I understand the complaint to be is that when folks try their best to understand ritual from within a given cultural context, and to reproduce that as much as possible (because they want to honour the gods of that culture in that cultures own ways), that they are being elitist. Further, and this seems to be where things begin to get stuck in peoples craws, when it is pointed out that folks who incorporate non-cultural elements into those rituals, are doing so, then those elites turn into fundamentalists! Buh, buh buh! (dramatic groundhog).

Here's the thing, if one accepts that gods or rituals belong to specific cultures or traditions, and one also wishes to promulgate this via religious expression, and that orthopraxy is a key element of those traditions they wish to continue, than of course those same people would balk at others who simply add elements because they think it works better or they like it more. Obviously this ties into the divergence of the significance and role that tradition plays within those perspectives. Yet to label the former as fundamentalist because they are trying to remain faithful to their customs and ways is remarkably crass, if not outright stupid. Of course religions where orthopraxy is foundational will have adherents who get hung up on "doing it right". This again gets back to the idea of respect, particularly of cultural ways and values.

"Bow down before the one you serve, you're gonna get what you deserve"

Oddly enough, this is one point where I, mostly, agree with the author. Not that this particular perspective is indicative of "Pagan fundamentalism" because, as I will elaborate below, the accusation which forms the crux of this response, is nothing more than a fallacious application of the "perennial philosophy", albeit in a slightly inverted manner. 

Where I would say that I agree, is that the idea that you are a slave to the gods, and have no agency in your dealings with them, is a remarkably stupid one. Of course, I have recently belaboured this particular point, so I need not repeat it here. The only caveat being that I fully acknowledge that there may be polytheistic religions where utter subservience to the gods was (is) a thing; doesn't change my sentiments on it. So while I reject utterly the idea of humans being nothing more than the playthings of the gods, I fully acknowledge that there are certainly malefic spirits and deities, that one can fail to honour ones obligations to the gods and that consequences follow from this. Likewise, there are examples from the lore of the consequences of violating ritual or personal prohibitions (aka geasa) and so one ought to take the utmost care and diligence to be aware and take care. 

"Everyone knows the gods obtained perfection in 173 CE!"

This point, and the next one, are significant to this whole endevour as this is the context whereby I first came across this particular blogger. Insomuch as the argument is yet again a strawman, and misses the subtle nuances of how reconstructionism works. To avoid repetition, in this section I will be speaking to "the sensibilities of the gods in relation to their temporal contexts", and in the next section address the centrality of mythology.

Acknowledging that the cultures in which the gods revealed themselves were vastly different from the age we live in now is obvious to all but the most delusional member of the SCA (and even then, the fact that "anachronism" is in the label is a good tell). In general terms, one will not find GRP's advocating for the return of: slavery, bovine based economies, trial by ordeal, cattle raids, peat based primary household heating sources, prayer/poem based medicine or human sacrifice. Nor would those same people argue for social or economic policy based on those elements of Iron Age Ireland. 

You may find, however, that structural aspects of the way in which the cosmos was held to be related to human society, and the very basis of how and why one ought to worship the gods would be of some significance to people in the modern age seeking to worship those same gods. Worldview, an understanding of the cosmological basis of the world, not even of the how, but most definitely of the why. How a particular worldview developed and the perceptual filters one necessarily has to adopt, to understand what our experiences, our lives mean, is vitally important.

This is the point that so many Pagans miss or do not understand; for a reconstructionist the worship of the gods is predicated upon the culture within which the god(s) revealed themselves or were discovered. The culture ultimately comes from how a given group, in a given geographic area, with a specific language and history came to understand their world and themselves. Religion at its best and most natural is a component of ones being and a key component of the self. It is not something which can meaningfully be compartmentalized, only to be brought out every other Tuesday, between 3 and 5 pm. It is part of a whole, of ones worldview. If ones worldview is predicated upon a reconstruction of a given, pre-(or contemporaneous)Christian culture, than one will necessarily try their best to understand the nature of the gods in that context. We do so because we recognize that we are part of a cultural continuum; lost, fragmented and scattered though some of it may be. 

The values we hold the gods as often embodying are those values which, while perhaps not timeless, are none the less valuable, especially in a modern context where we feel they may be underrepresented, ignored or rejected outright. Values like those I mentioned above: honour, justice, truth, wisdom, hospitality, courage and pride may not mesh well with other, more "modern" values, but this does not mean they are not worth striving for.

To the point about the gods "being unchanging", I would certainly make the case that the perception of time an immortal being has would necessarily be different from one who has a relatively short lifespan. I do not think the concept of "the gods reaching maturity" is particularly apt. Rather this argument is a dodge by those who make claims based upon UPG who then try to make emphatic statements, as mouthpieces of the gods no less, which are supposed to be held as meaningful for anyone other than the individual... Or in another way

"Your Fanon has no place alongside Canon"

The accusation of mythic literalism is the last arrow in the quiver of this particular blogger, if not stated outright, it is heavily implied. This too is another common criticism or attack against reconstructionism, to the point where there is a clever pejorative term for it, "lore whore". "Fundamentalist Pagans" obviously share their literalistic bibliophilia with their monotheistic counterparts. Except that they don't, not really, at all.

If one were to examine the sort of recommend reads/ readings list common to the webpages of reconstructionists, one will always find collections or resources of the myths of the given culture being reconstructed. What one will not find, however, are instructions explaining how the lore is the primary basis upon which we are to reconstruct or religions. Let me repeat that, in case you missed it: the lore is NOT the primary basis upon which we develop our religions. Seems kind of counter intuitive, but this is because as dilligent recons, we've spent time learning and studying the historic, linguistic and cultural context of how the lore came to be in the first place. The lore, typically speaking from a GRP/CR and Asatruar/Heathen perspective, has many problematic elements, being Christianized along a gradient ranging from veneer to solid, chief among them. I have said it before, here and elsewhere, the mythic texts are NOT SACRED.

Rather, the gods the myths tell us about, are what is to be considered sacred. One can certainly start off with the lore, but you will soon run into a great deal of questions or have a perspective which is informed by something other than the culture the myths sprung from, and come to a lot of weak conclusions. This is why studying the culture and history is so vital, because you understand what the meaning behind the stories is, to what purpose were the stories transcribed and recorded. Understanding with what functions the gods are associated with, what role (and generally this is varied) did they play within the cosmological framework of that culture? The myths are certainly the best source we have on trying to understand the nature of the gods or at least key elements of their nature, but they are not perfect. 

What they do provide, however, accompanied with a firm understanding of the history, archaeology, cultural and social elements, is a means of fortifying ourselves against delusion. They act, in a sense, as a series of checks and balances with which to check our UPG against. They can do this, because they represent the inherited wisdom and introspection of the cultures from which they were spawned. They are the sources by which we have any knowledge of the gods at all, and so they are provided a placement of importance and honour.

Conclusion

We come now to the keystone of my whole piece, the turn-about question that reconstructionists ought to be asking:

If the cultural context in which these particular gods exist does not matter, if the ways with which our ancestors traditionally worshiped these gods does not matter, if the values our ancestors held to through their worship of these gods does not matter, and if the stories told of these gods do not matter, then why do you cling to a god from this culture at all?

If you are coming at this from the perspective that the gods are just universal archetypes, obscured through cultural filters, would it not be better to remove the trappings altogether and worship the gods as they really are? If you genuinely believe that your experiences of the gods are more authentic or authoritative than what is reflected in the combined and collected knowledge of the gods as depicted in the mythic texts, then upon what basis do you reason that your experience is of any such mythic god at all? Finally, if your experience of the god(s) is inverse or anathema to the depiction within a given mythic narrative, which is also contradicted by the more generalized cultural function of said deity, upon what basis are you judging that this is the same god? There are many other questions which could be asked, but it would be rather repetitive. Suffice to say that I personally find lists, like the one above, incredulous, to say the least.

When it comes right down to it, the idea of "Pagan fundamentalism" is nonsensical, at least the way in which such a slur is usually wielded. It is generally predicated upon an inversion of the "All gods are one God" platitude, the so called perennial philosophy of religion. In this case though, the generalization is "All religions have fundamentalists", which is as apt as the perennial approach. Which is not at all.

The sort of fundamentalism being slung here is not to be confused with the historic fundamentalist movement among Protestant Christianity, but rather a general sense of "My religion is the only right, only true religion, and all others are necessarily wrong, evil, etc." Now, to try and make the argument more cogent in a Pagan/polytheistic context, the phrasing is not as harsh, absolute or universal. Instead of "my religion is the only right one", it morphs into "my religion is the only right way to worship ________", which of course changes what fundamentalism in this context means. Which steals power from the concept to the point where it becomes meaningless.

Acknowledging orthopraxy, that things ought to be done a certain way for reasons j,k,l, in a ritualized context, within a given tradition, is no more fundamentalist that a Catholic expecting to receive the host as part of a Catholic Mass. It just so happens that some folks feel that gods belong to cultures and are not universal. Therefore it is reasonable to worship them in keeping with traditional ways and forms. Likewise, when a given component is divorced from its cultural context, and held to be universal, then it looses a great deal of the meaning and power it had because of its place within that context. 

I do not think that any of these perspectives, nor the rebuttals to the points raised above engender fundamentalism in my perspective or practice. Others, though, may disagree.

Thoughts?

-Gorm.

* When I say universal in this context, I am referring to the term in the sense of cutting across cultural and temporal boundaries and not in the sense of widespread worship within a specific cultural, geographic and temporal context.

Give it up already!...Why (apparently) Reconstructionism is doomed

I have written about this topic a few times before, but people taking issue with Reconstructionism never really seems to go away. Truly the label is one which seems to breed criticism based on binary positions: if we aren't being "stodgy academics", we're being "closed minded bullies"; if we aren't "trapped by the past", then we "have too little to go on"; we're "too dismissive", or we aren't "dismissive enough"; the list goes on.

Just what is it that makes Reconstructionism, and to be clear I am referring primarily to Celtic Reconstructionism, elicit such vitriol and dismissivness? I have comes across several criticisms, and like I have in the past, will address them.

1. CR has a methodology which is too restrictive too allow it to be a living tradition.
2. A)There is not enough material to even meet the criteria needed for reconstruction to take place.
    B) Therefore, CR's are as prone to imagination/idealization as any other "Celtic Flavoured" tradition.

1. The second link explores one component of this criteria, namely that UPG "supposedly" has not place in CR methodology, which is patent nonsense. I'll not rehash it here, suffice to say that UPG is as important as good scholarship. Continuing on this line of thought, and we come across the criticism that the methodology is too restrictive to allow for any living, and especially public, form of CR. Funny, all of the GRP's I know seem to think they are members of a living religion, and certainly their daily prayers and rites seem to corroborate this fact. Even those in the broader CR camp seem to have no problem with engaging in prayer, ceremony, rites, festivals and other celebrations which are part and parcel of the world view. The organization I belong to (An Chomairle Ghaol Naofa) identifies its core ideology as Ár nDóigh Bheatha Ildiach is Gaelach " (our Gaelic Polytheist Lifeway). This means that it informs and shapes our theological worldview, as well as every aspect of our lives. There isn't a partition between "religious life" and "profane life", there is no "turning it off", so to speak, because it is part of who were are, both as a community but also as individuals. So when I am told matter of factly that what I do on a daily basis is not possible, I'm going to be a tad irritated at the folks who are talking out of their asses.

Now, having said all that, it is anecdotal. Maybe there are those fabled CR's who are sitting somewhere, in a library no doubt, who are simply too busy reconstructing to actually go out and do it. I've yet to come across them, or have yet to meet anyone else who has, (and perhaps this is because they are so very busy being studious), but others claim they exist and since they are always trotted out as the "typical" example, they must exist somewhere.

Or, you know, maybe it is a case of people creating straw dollies out of season and making pronouncements from their posteriors.

2. A) This is a variation on the "it's too hard" argument, but one which refuses to go away; and not surprisingly this arguments tend to come from the same types. "We can't really know", "Just speculation", "Not enough material", are all trotted out as criticisms, and the responses (by folks like me) are then trotted out again to refute them. Every GRP (and CR) who has been able to get beyond scratching the surface, would be able to rebut these claims. We are eminently aware of the state, quality and caveats which accompany the entire corpus of mythic text. We are aware that nothing pertaining to the myths, can trace their writing to the pre-Christian period. We are aware that other Reconstructionist communities have it better in a lot of ways, for a lot of reasons. We are aware that it isn't "easy", but I tend to think that few things which are worthwhile are. This is where a fundamental skill, something which is necessary to understanding, comes into play; the faculty of critical thinking. Critical thinking allows an individual to look at a source, understand the authors/redactors biases, perspectives, translators preferences, and based on their knowledge, make an informed decision about the relative merits of a given source, and how much use said source is in reconstructing. This does not pertain just to medieval manuscripts, but to accounts of folklore from more recent times, secondary texts which explore these mythic writings and have their own perspectives upon them, and so on. All things considered, there is a wealth of information available, and enough of a scholarly consensus to merit the so thorough examination it receives.

2. B) This, of all the criticisms I have come across with regards to CR, is the one which is the most valid; in that it is, in fact, a valid criticism. There are those CR's and GRP's out there who do romanticize and sanitize their image of the Celts, and the Iron Age Gaels. This is due, in  no small part, to the romanticised image of "The Celts" which developed during the "Celtomania" of the late Victorian period. The issue stems from utilizing sources which were sanitized and tidied to appeal to Victorian sensibilities, and so for some of those GRP's (especially folks just starting down this path) out there, they may not be aware of this fact. This criticism does tie into 2.A) to some extent, because for a number of reasons, there are GRP's who tend to take a far less critical eye to the texts then may be necessary.

In fact a troubling, I'll not call it a trend, but perhaps a tendency of observation has developed wherein textual literalism is not only lauded, but championed, by some. My experience of this tendency of observation has led me to a couple of conclusions in regards to why this is happening at all, and why this is the wrong approach to take.

• GRP's, despite the stodgy academic stereotype, are in reality very passionate people. This passion and enthusiasm can, unfortunately, be channeled into well meaning, but flawed endeavours. The mythic literature is important, and an understanding of it is a core component of even being a GRP. The misstep is in holding the mythic texts to be sacred, and yes you read that correctly. THE CORPUS OF MYTHIC TEXTS ARE NOT SACRED. How could they be? Their authorship is far later than periods which they are describing, and were recorded, redacted, written, exaggerated, altered and invented by scribes who were not polytheists. They were Christians, and while the texts themselves are evidence enough that they had nostalgia for elements of their mythic history and tradition, they were theologically hostile to varying degrees to the old gods. The texts themselves have been translated, retold, rewritten and a host of other literary issues, and so it is simply foolish to hold them as being sacred. The figures behind the stories, the framework and worldview gleaned from a proper understanding of the stories, are where the value of the texts lie. To hold them as being sacred, though, is to romanticize and fabricate a state of affairs that simply cannot be.

• The above argument also underlies why the idea of textual literalism, from a GRP standpoint, is not only stupid, but (properly) impossible. I say properly, because it is possible in the same way that those who interpret the Christian Bible literally are able to do so, by cherry picking and cognitive dissonance. Literalism would require one to first accept all of the Christian framing present, and by default this enhumerizes the depiction of any figure who is representative of a deity. One could then step up on a ladder and begin harvesting the bits they like, but then they need to be able to determine what elements are actually pre-Christian, and which have been added in, requiring a critical examination, rendering literalism null and void. This is not to say that believing in the existence of the gods is wrong, far from it. I believe the gods exist as much as I myself, my wife, my family, friends or you reading this do. It is simply that the very nature of the mythic texts precludes any sort of functional literalist interpretation.

• Some GRP's are still beholden to a foreign (i.e. not Gaelic) approach to understanding the place and function of religion. The enthusiasm is channeled in the same way that, say, Born Again Christians channel their energy following the conversion experience. The problem is that not all religions function in the same way, and so trying to use the same sort of behavioural models will not work. Literalism, as I explained above, can not work. Proselytizing in the endeavour to convert others, will not work. Fundamentalism as a practical expression of belief, will not work. None of these things will work because GRP is not based on believing the "right things" or having exclusive access to "the truth". It is based on the fostering and maintenance of proper relationships: with the de ochus ande, with our families, with our community, with society, with the cosmos.

Reconstructionism itself is often accused of being the "fundamentalist" branch of paganism, precisely because we maintain a degree of criticism when it comes to our understanding of the gods. The goal of doing our best to understand the worldview of our ancestors, is difficult, especially when the  information we have to go on is flawed. To pretend otherwise is to do precisely what our critics accuse of doing, and on top of that, ignoring a basic principle of Celtic Reconstructionism altogether: a rejection of the romanticism that has plagued the image of the Celts since the 19th century. But we are not beholden to an erroneous belief that the texts we work with are perfect, are infallible. We know (or ought to know) better.

-Gorm

Reconstructionism, again...

This has been going on for a little while now, but once again it is sort of at the fore of some discussions on the methodology behind Reconstructionism; specifically how it relates to UPG. For myself it was sparked by a discussion on one of the forums I frequent, and linked to a blog by another Reconstructionist. I'll not hash out the whole thing here, but the crux was that some of the recons who frequented this forum disagreed with the use of Reconstructionist as it was defined by the blog. There was an interesting discussion which resulted, and in the end, I guess we agreed to disagree.

Recently, however, this issue, the role of UPG in Recon, has come up again. My only issue at this point is the way that the discussion is being couched, and the canard which is being bandied about, namely "lore is law". I can only speak from my own experiences with the Recons I know, but I've yet to meet any that would agree that the lore is all one goes by, and UPG or mystic experiences have no place in Reconstructionism. The issue that I have then, is that there is a vast difference between scholarly diligence and placing what is known (or probable based on inference) ahead of personal gnosis, than simply quoting the lore as some infallible text, as is wont in monotheistic circles. The problem is that the later is precisely how those who favour scholarship over UPG are being represented, as if they were some sort of mythic literalist's. I'd like to believe that people are willing to give the benefit of the doubt, and that any Reconstructionist worth their salt would be aware of the limitations of the mythic texts, doubly so for those which are known to have been recorded/written by Christian scribes. But this isn't happening, no apparently there is a vociferous contingent of Recons who think that, for example, the LGE is holy writ and wholly pre-Christian (despite it starting with a short summary of the events of Genesis) and that any who diverge from the myths as laid down are heretical and need be cast out! That isn't even the real issue here, what is the issue is the, I believe deliberate, attempt to equate a reliance on scholarship with a literalistic approach to the lore. The lore is but one, ONE, part of a much larger whole comprising a body of knowledge pertaining to a cultural group, upon which one builds the foundation for reconstruction. My experience is limited, and certainly I've not met anyone who would use the Recon label, but I've never come across any of these literalists, because frankly we know better.

I've come to expect this sort of argument, that Recons are all stodgy academics who study their religion, rather than live it, from some Pagan circles, but from within the Recon community itself? I'll repeat it here for the umpteenth time, UPG matters. UPG is crucial. UPG is an intrinsic component of Reconstructionism. UPG has a role, as does study. I believe that UPG is informed by, and understood through the study of whatever culture it is one is reconstructing from. UPG can be used to fill in gaps where we have no information, or through inference and probability where we do have some idea. If you've gotten the notion that Ogma receives offerings of oatmeal cookies favourably, I've got no issue with that. Despite there not being any references to oatmeal cookies in the lore (or other texts) it seems like the offering of baked goods was probable, so go for it. If you've had a powerful dream where an amorphous goddess tells you all deities are one, well that's not reflected at all in any of the info we've got, and if you choose to base your perspective from that point, you've stopped reconstructing. I realize these are two fairly cut and dried examples, but I'm firmly in the camp that mystic experiences need be understood through whatever cultural framework one is working from, and that this is the basis of Reconstructionism as a methodology. If it comes down to a personal experience vs scholarship, I favour scholarship. Would a conflict between UPG and scholarship necessarily manifest in such a dichotomous manner, not likely. Was there any indication of the dismissal of the importance of mystic experiences in that? Hmm.... nope.

It can be pointed out that scholarship itself has room for improvement: it is by no means monolithic, nor static and there are many perspectives and approaches to the material to consider. There is definitely a great deal of "wiggle room" when it comes to trying to understand an ancient culture, its mythic framework, and then adapting it to be something which is still relevant in a modern context. This is especially true when the sources we have are fragmentary and glossed over with a differing religious perspective, and approaching them with a critical eye is simply a necessity, because in those cases we just haven't got fully preserved pre-Christian myths. This is one of the reasons I balk at the idea that anyone who would call themselves a Recon would not be cognizant of the limitations of the mythic texts (at least in the CR camp), and why the suggestion of mythic literalism as an active force in Reconstructionism seems very unlikely. Though I could see how in the cases where more complete myths exist it being a possibility, I also think that the contemporary texts which explore the relationships between the myths and the deities they represent would be crucial reading for Recons.

Thoughts?

Gorm.

The extent of "Paganism"

This blog was inspired by a recent discussion I have been having on an interfaith forum.

The discussion focused around the need for a spokesperson to speak for Paganism. My position on the idea was that it was at best misguided and at worst, terrible. The crux of my opposition is that Paganism is so disparate, so varied that the idea of a spokesperson trying to speak for all, would result in a huge swath of those who find themselves under the umbrella ignored. The problem of course is that Paganism is an almost useless term when it comes to describing a belief system; because in its modern conception it means whatever one wants it to. The fact is that there are always outliers who throw a wrench into any kind of consensus among those who use the term.

Think about it, I mean really think about it; what do so called Pagan religions actually have in common? Nature worship; a vague concept in and of itself, but there are those who would not call their practices nature worship, I'm one of them. Polytheism; yes a lot of those religions under the umbrella are polytheistic, but some are monotheistic (admittedly rare), duotheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, agnostic and even atheistic. Okay, no Pagans worship the Abrahamaic god right? Nope, there are both Christo-Pagans and Judeo-Pagans. Belief in or practice of magick; again many "Pagan" religions do not. Holy days which are based on the natural rhythms of the earth? Certainly more often than not, but again not every day is linked to seasonal patterns, they may in fact be based on a particular deity. Worship or belief in "the Goddess", certainly not, but indicative of the popular imagination and relative influence of eclectic neoWicca and "Paganism 101" books. A shared developmental history? True in some cases but not others, Asatru for example developed independently from "Paganism" and only later was placed under the umbrella. Of course not all Asatruars were happy with their inclusion, and so the use of the term Heathen came to prominence, as a way to differentiate between them and other Pagans. There is a similar push among many in the reconstructionist camp to do something similar.

The other consideration is that even if many "Pagan" religions share some of the above, they are also not the only ones who do so. Concern for the environment, different conceptions of deity, use of magic(k), seasonal holy days, etc. are found among many religions which do not fall under the umbrella. Yoruba and Santeria, for example may have many parallels to some of the "Pagan" religions, but are decidedly not classed as such.

What then is the use of "Paganism" as an umbrella term, when it does not really describe anything? We could certainly go back to more classical definitions; all those religions and beliefs outside the JCI model, but again that does little to impart meaning other than they aren't worshiping the god of Abraham (and then what about those poor Christo/Judeo-Pagans?) A friend of mine pointed out that even the old "getting Pagans to agree on anything is like herding cats" is not apt; cats at least are all the same creature. It is, she contends, more like herding cats, dogs and ferrets.

What then do "Pagan" religions really have in common with each other than they do not have in common with other religions? What do "Pagans" get from grouping themselves together, that other interfaith networking would not achieve?

Personally I think the existing structures and communities (web forums, mailing lists, conventions, PPD, etc.) more than anything prevent many from understanding how disparate "we" really are. Not that I am opposed to groups like the Pagan Pride Project, or interfaith online forums, I'm not. I am aware that differences exist, and are not mere quibbles or hair splitting; they are core beliefs which are not readily glossed over. I have participated in my local PPD for almost as long as I have been a polytheist, but I have not participated in their group ritual, because it is little more than a Wiccanesque framework with a variety of different deities called upon depending on the officiants that year. I do not blame them, but it is a ritual framework which is as foreign to me as a Catholic liturgy, and so I abstain from participation.

It has taken me some time to understand just why so many in the CR community are distancing themselves from "Paganism" as a label which describes their beliefs, but it has become fairly apparent.
Thoughts?

Gorm.

P.S.: I would also like to point to an essay by Devyn Gillette and Lewis Stead, The Pentagram and the Hammer, which explores the differences between Asatru and Wicca.

Reconstructionism...

So I find from time to time a moderate degree of anti-Reconstructionist sentiment among the wider Pagan community, and paradoxically sometimes from those who claim to be Reconstructionist's themselves. There are a number of reasons why people dislike Recons:

1. Reconstructionists are elitists.
2. Reconstructionists do not care about practicing a living religion.
3. Reconstructionism is no more authentic than any other form of Paganism
4. Reconstructionism is a waste of time because ancient religion has no value in the 21st century.

I shall address each reason below, but they all feed into one another to some degree, perhaps why they continually crop up among those who are opposed to the idea of Reconstructionism.

1. Reconstructionists are elitists: This is more of a sentiment, than an argument, but it permeates most of the arguments and really amounts to no more than an ad hominim attack, but a common one. Reconstructionists are elitist because they dismiss the opinions of other people and think their opinions are better then everyone else. This is a bit of a misnomer, because there is a difference between the weight of say a scholars opinion on a subject they have researched thoroughly vs. someone who has read a book on the subject but little else. I have no problem believing that someone who has spent the time researching something has a more informed opinion than one who has not. As such, because Recon's tend to be better read and eminently knowledgeable on the cultures they are reconstructing from, this can come across as being "elitist" because they know what they are talking about, and do not simply accept the claims made by someone who has not done the research.

2. Reconstructionists do not care about practicing a living religion: This criticism has to do with the "presence" of Recons, and the kind of discussions they tend to be involved in. Often involving academic topics of considerably specificity and minutia, often on understanding of cosmology, framework and mythology. As such topics like the practice of the rituals or an application of the understanding of cosmology is left for more private or personal conversations, and so the perception is that Recon's are only concerned with the scholarship, and not the application of religion.

3. Reconstructionism is no more authentic than any other form of Paganism: This is a bit trickier, as it needs to be clarified as to what "authentic" means. I would certainly say Reconstructionism is closer to the beliefs of [pre-Christian culture], than other forms of Paganism. The entire basis of Reconstructionism is the study of archeology, folk belief, literature and history in order to try and as accurately as possible reconstruct the earlier beliefs of a given culture; many forms of Paganism have no such focus. When it is pointed out that "we [Recon's] can't really know anything for sure" or "you  [Recon's] are just stating an opinion, and it is no better than mine", what is really being said is that the one making such accusations give no heed to scholarship, yet we should be treating their opinion as equal to that of someone who has spent a concerted amount of effort studying. I think this is preposterous. I have no problem with Pagans who have made the decision to not try and incorporate historic elements into their practices; or have even developed a religion based on more modern discourse (such as many of the forms of neo-Druidism, largely derived from Victorian and early 20th century scholarship). The problem arises when one then argues that such a belief is (despite its modernity) the same as it was in [pre-Christian culture], when it is clearly not the case. Not everyone who denounces Reconstructionism necessarily does this, but it is disconcerting how frequently this particular claim is made especially in the guise of "The [pre-Christian culture] made it up as they went along, so why can't I?", the answer of course is that you'd first have to prove that "they were just making it up", which is simply not the case when one has actually studied [pre-Christian culture]

4. Reconstructionism is a waste of time because an ancient religion has no value in the 21st century. This is becoming a more frequent claim, as many sensible Pagans realize the fallacious nature of argument 3. Unfortunately this criticism has its own problematic issues. The chief concern I have is if ancient religion (and the deities they worshiped) have no value, or no applicability to the modern Pagan, why bother with the worship of those deities at all? I have yet to see a compelling response to this question. I believe that if one is going to worship a pre-Christian deity, then they ought to learn as much about the culture that knowledge of said deity was developed in. This gets back to fundamental issues of cosmology, and how one see's and understands the cosmos; as in any scholarly, effort context is of vital importance. Understanding the cultural context in which worship of a deity occurred historically, provides the best means of trying to understand said deity within the larger cultural framework in which it was originally understood. This is doubly important for GRP's because the mythic texts we have are all Christianized to some extent; understanding what is [supportably] pre-Christian then is dependent on one's knowledge of the pre-Christian culture of the Gaels and corresponding cultures which share cultural and linguistic roots. Without this knowledge, one is going to come away from the myths with a very different picture of pre-Christian deity, which will unfortunately be wrong.
There is certainly room for innovation, there are certainly aspects of pre-Christian culture which is so wholly divorced from the modern, that recreating it would be difficult, to say nothing of he wisdom of doing so. This often comes with accusations of "selective arguing"; based primarily on an "all or nothing" gambit. Why is it okay for you [Recon] to pick and choose what elements to recreate, but not okay for me [eclectic] to do the same? I would argue that this is decidedly a wrongheaded approach. As far as I have experienced Reconstructionism, the central component is found in recreating and adopting the world view of [pre-Christian culture], everything else follows from this. So for example, many have commented that [pre-Christian culture] performed human or animal sacrifices, had slaves, engaged in blood feuds, had trial by ordeal, and so on. The argument then becomes for Recon's to have any meaningful claim to authenticity, they need to do these things as well, or the whole effort is moot. However, with an understanding of the why behind such beliefs as the necessity of sacrifices, or the context in which blood feuds arose, provides a good reason as to why these elements need not be recreated (or could be adapted) to suit modern sensibilities.

Thoughts?

Gorm.