Give Me That Old Time Religion?

Disclaimer: This entry speaks somewhat strongly of my own spiritual orientation, one which is quite different from that of several friends here, friends whose faith I not only respect, but whose own meditations frequently inspire me. I fear that the tone of what follows may be more critical than I intended. If so, it arises from my sense of what is lacking for me in traditional faith paths; it's not a condemnation of those paths.


A recent internet search about Freyja led me to the fascinating website of Heidhrun Freyjasdottir*, a gydhia of Freyja. Heidhrun is very proud of her Heathen tradition, and in an essay titled "Call Us Heathen" she makes a strong statement of the differences she perceives between her tradition and those of Wicca and other Neo-Pagan paths:

Heathenry is a reconstructionist religion and folkway, based upon 20,000 years of archeaological evidence and surviving lore. It is neither invention or self-styled spiritualism, but a living tradition based upon historical fact.

This statement reminded me strikingly of the attitude of a good friend of mine who was raised Evangelical Christian, became an Episcopelian as an adult, and is now in the process of formally coverting to the Eastern Orthodox church. One of the primary reasons for his conversion is that he sees the Orthodox Church remaining consistent in theology and practice for centuries while other Christian sects are, in his opinion, changing too much with the times.

Setting aside for a moment the accuracy of either his or Heidhrun's claims for their traditions (I personally am neither qualified nor interested in judging them), this raises a significant point of distinction between them and me, namely: the relative importance of remaining as true as possible to the historical forms and theology of a spiritual tradition, or seeking to remain true to the foundational beliefs and principles while allowing practice, ethics, and theology to develop and evolve over time.

(Please understand, I'm not saying that traditional faiths don't evolve. It's a matter of degree of openness.)

As a scholar of religion, I have deep respect for those who diligently study the texts and artifacts of our ancestors and try to interpret them as honestly as possible. And I see nothing wrong in trying to re-create the ancient practices. But personally I don't want my spirituality to be confined to revelations and beliefs of hundreds or thousands of years ago. I want my spirituality to grapple meaningfully with the challenges and issues of modern life, not point to an ancient text and say "But it says here. . . ." and have that settle the issue. Not when I believe so many of the mores of any tradition have been conditioned by the circumstances of their times.

Do we not have the right to a spirituality that is grounded in and responsive to our own time, just as our forebears' was grounded in and responsive to their own?

( A few more thoughts, behind a cut to respect your Friends page )

Names

A few weeks ago, the LJ "Writers Block Prompt" asked "If you could change your name, what would you change it to and why?"

Ever since then I've coming back to that question and asking one of my own in response: What do you mean "if"? Anyone can change their name!


What do you think?
Is your name yours to do with as you please, in whole or in part?
Or do you consider it something that has to be kept as it was given to you?


In my own case, I legally changed my middle name to what I considered to be a heroine name when I was 21 or 22.

I like my first and last names well enough, but would have changed my first name if I didn't like it. My last name I feel obligated to keep, as I have a very strong connection to my birth family. On the other hand, my daughter has my ex-husband's last name (which I never took), and that doesn't bother me.

What did bother me was when people expressed concern that my not having the same last name as my daughter and her father might cause her to have social or emotional issues.