![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
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?
Like Heidhrun, I worship and call on Freyja -- but if I believed it was important that I do so in strict accordance with the way my ancestors called on Her early in the first millenium, I wouldn't bother. In fact, the most important elements of my observances are not found in any saga or artifact I'm aware of. But I've felt Her presence and power nonetheless, and I am not going to give up those rites just because they are not historically based.
I'm not advocating throwing all of tradition out the window, nor depending entirely on subjective mystical experience. As a spiritual director, part of my role is to help people reflect on their private spiritual experiences and help them discern if they are truly tapping into the Divine or have gotten lost in vanity, depression, or delusion. One (not the only) standard is how what they've experienced fits with revelations which have been recorded and preserved through tradition.
The sifting of authentic revelation from the culturally relative (or personally expedient) is, in my opinion, a major issue in modern spirituality.
At the same time, it's clear that Heidhrun -- like my friend -- finds that her spiritual path speaks more than adequately to her modern life, and very likely brings something to it that she can't find elsewhere. Being a reconstructionist doesn't make her path less valid than mine, just not one that I care to tread.
I'm interested in the thoughts of this community. For those of you who are reconstructionists or place a high value on the stability and roots of your tradition, how do you balance historical fidelity and preservation with modern challenges? Where and how do you draw the line between what you keep and what you discard from the past?
* Heidhrun's website: http://www.freefolk.org/leaves.html
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?
Like Heidhrun, I worship and call on Freyja -- but if I believed it was important that I do so in strict accordance with the way my ancestors called on Her early in the first millenium, I wouldn't bother. In fact, the most important elements of my observances are not found in any saga or artifact I'm aware of. But I've felt Her presence and power nonetheless, and I am not going to give up those rites just because they are not historically based.
I'm not advocating throwing all of tradition out the window, nor depending entirely on subjective mystical experience. As a spiritual director, part of my role is to help people reflect on their private spiritual experiences and help them discern if they are truly tapping into the Divine or have gotten lost in vanity, depression, or delusion. One (not the only) standard is how what they've experienced fits with revelations which have been recorded and preserved through tradition.
The sifting of authentic revelation from the culturally relative (or personally expedient) is, in my opinion, a major issue in modern spirituality.
At the same time, it's clear that Heidhrun -- like my friend -- finds that her spiritual path speaks more than adequately to her modern life, and very likely brings something to it that she can't find elsewhere. Being a reconstructionist doesn't make her path less valid than mine, just not one that I care to tread.
I'm interested in the thoughts of this community. For those of you who are reconstructionists or place a high value on the stability and roots of your tradition, how do you balance historical fidelity and preservation with modern challenges? Where and how do you draw the line between what you keep and what you discard from the past?
* Heidhrun's website: http://www.freefolk.org/leaves.html
no subject
“Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about.”
Now this is not to say that I don't buy Cardinal Newman's doctrine on the development of doctrine (say THAT tn times fast), because obviously the ways in which we discern truth change with our time and culture.
But truth stays truth.
What was true for our ancestors remains true for us. Yes, there may be new ways to explain and to explore, but isn't it better to begin with a point you know to be fixed?
I'll leave you with another Chesterton quote that in no way contradicts the first:
"The corruption in things is not only the best argument for being progressive; it is also the only argument against being conservative.... [A]ll conservatism is based upon the idea that if you leave things alone you leave them as they are. But you do not. If you leave a thing alone, you leave it in a torrent of change. If you leave a white post alone it will soon be a black post. If you particularly want it to be white you must always be painting it again; that is, you must always be having a revolution."
no subject
But who is the Church for if not for those who are "merely walking around" -- and those who will walk around after them? There is much to revere in our inheritance from the past, but the dead are frozen in time. So many aspects of our lives are literally inconceivable to them.
If I may be so bold as to compare the Constitution of the United States to a religious text: it both holds to a core of fundamental principles and remains open to being updated to include such advances the dead could not make themselves, such as freedom for slaves and votes for women.
Truth does stay the truth -- but not everything that is labeled truth is truth: The world is flat was a commonly believed "truth." Women being inherently inferior to men was once a "truth." The divine right of kings was once a "truth." The challenge I see in contemporary religious life is discerning eternal truths from contemporary perspective. And while I have my own biases, I acknowledge that it's not necessarily easy or straightforward to discern the difference in all cases, and that people of sincere goodwill can come to different conclusions.
I do like that second quote from Chesterton, and expect to employ it myself in the future.
no subject
If you believe, as I do, that communion of saints is one of those truths we talk about, then it follows that the dead cannot be frozen, for in truth I ask them for their intercession every day, and in some mystical way, they convey my prayers to the altar of God.
That, I think, is the hinge around which the argument of tradition versus modernism turns: are the dead really dead and gone, are our ancestors really just dust, or are they something more?
Are they frozen into their on moment in time, or are they in fact eternal?
Everything else follows from the answer to that question.
By the way, both quotes above are from Chesteron's book Orthodoxy. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.
no subject
What I thought you (and Chesterton) meant was that the writings of the church fathers, and their beliefs and attitudes, outweighed the concerns and opinions of the living -- and I do see those writings as voices frozen in time. Clearly you meant something different.
Would you be willing to elaborate a bit more on how this works out in daily practice and what it means to you? How does tradition honor and support the dead and meet the needs of the living? (If I'm even phrasing the question in a meaningful way.) I'm sincerely intrigued and curious.
It's ironic that I misunderstood this particular aspect of your response, since I'm doing Underworld work right now, in which the ongoing life of 'the dead' plays a big role.