Give Me That Old Time Religion?

[qos]

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

Comments

[athenian-abroad.livejournal.com]

I'll chip in my own, perhaps over-analytical, two cents.

It may be helpful to think about these questions in terms of a three-part typology: (1) Authentic Tradition; (2) Pretend Tradition; and (3) Innovation. One set of questions relates to the classification of particular religious practices and doctrines (e.g. "Is the doctrine of Papal Infallibility an authentic tradition?"). A different set of questions relates to the relative values of the categories (e.g. "Why do we care about the distinction between Pretend and Authentic tradition?" or "Which is more likely to be true, Authentic Tradition or Innovation?").

Authentic Tradition here means, "what people really did believe and practice a long time ago," while Innovation means, "new things that we believe or practice now, but which we know weren't believed or practiced in the past." Pretend Tradition is the interesting category, because it consists of innovations which are said to be (with greater or lesser degrees of seriousness) ancient traditions. The really interesting question, I think, is why this category exists at all. Why "dress up" new things as old ones?

I can think of two major reasons. First, archaism itself has aesthetic value and therefore (in my book, synonymously) spiritual value. Antiquity can evoke emotional states and responses that are valuable for spiritual, and particularly mystical, practice. Old things are special, set apart from ordinary day-to-day life, unfamiliar yet not entirely alien, poetic rather than prosaic. Which sounds suspiciously like a definition of "sacred."

The other thing which motivates efforts to classify as traditional doctrines and practices which are not, is a desire to claim authority grounded on "traditional-ness." Some doctrinal set-ups make Pretend Tradition almost unavoidable. A church which grounds its claims to spiritual authority on the permanent, unchanging and inerrant nature of its teachings is very likely, if it exists for more than a few decades, to elaborate a body of Pretend Tradition.

Figuring out the relative "truth values" of the different categories depends, first of all, on the "kind" of truth you look for in spiritual claims. I like to distinguish "prosaic truth" from "poetic truth," where the latter has to do with emotional resonance, meaningfulness, et cetera, while the former is about whether a claim is...you know...true. We might say that Anna Karenina is true poetically (keenly observed, moving, insightful) while acknowledging that it is prosaically un-true -- i.e. that it is a work of fiction.

If you view spiritual truth as being primarily poetic truth, then the choice between categories is a personal, aesthetic one. If well chosen Innovations "speak to you," then so be it. If you crave kinship with the ancient past, then explore Authentic Tradition. If you find Authentic Tradition too "outdated" but still desire the feel of archaism, perhaps Pretend Tradition is for you. Tout le monde a sons gout, or words to that effect.

On the other hand, if you view spiritual truths as prosaic truths, as facts-in-the-world, like whether the Earth revolves around the Sun or the boiling point of water, a purely subjective, aesthetic judgment is likely inadequate. Now you need a theory defining a procedure for ascertaining "spiritual facts," and the nature of that theory will guide your evaluation of the "trustworthiness" of the different categories.

[oakmouse]

I wouldn't say this is over-analytical; I'd call it clear and reasoned. Also dead accurate; if you look into the history of ceremonial magic in the 19th and 20th centuries, for instance, or the early history of Gardnerian Wicca, you'll find that you're right on the money with the motives for "pretend tradition".