Beneath the Surface

I hate getting up in the morning. Then again, I also hate going to bed at night. Because I like to sleep...once I'm asleep. And I like to be awake, up and doing things, once I'm fully awake. Apparently it is the transition from one state to the next that annoys me. :)

But I'm up and awake now. Just not quite thinking yet. Some days it takes a few...hours.

You know, I've got to conclude something. (And this is stuff I've probably said before in some form, so sorry for any redundancy. :) Mainly I am clarifying some things for myself.) Heathenry is a reconstructed religion, but I think it has passed the point of being a reconstructionist religion. Yes, there's a wide range of practice and there are particular groups (some of the Anglo-Saxon heathen groups come to mind) that do have a stronger focus on it, who when they find that something in existing practice had a modern (or, more to the point, non-heathen) origin, they eliminate or change it--or make small changes to existing practice based on new information. I seem to recall that some group has tried a different sumbel format recently--not sure if it was Pollington's Meadhall that inspired it or a combination of things--which is cool. And on a less formal level, something like the Hammer Rite has become less common, although it is still used and (my guess) will always be used by quite a few folks.

But this is a problem with reconstructionist faiths, or perhaps I should say it is a problem for reconstructionist faiths. Once the religion gets to any size, the majority of adherents will no longer be those who will happily scour primary and secondary sources for liturgical detail for hours on end. Eventually, most folks are going to be there to practice the religion as it stands, regardless of its origins. If a reconstructed religion is a functional one that will serve the needs of its adherents, it will succeed. If it is not, it won't. There are not enough people out there for whom the primary goal of religion is to worship as the ancients did to support a growing faith; there are, I think, enough for whom this is one of several important things that they will choose a reconstructed faith over a wholly modern one--but if the execution sucks, the simple fact of it being inspired by the past will not hold them there.

But even given a religion that can stand on its own merits and flourish, and attract new people, there's still a potential problem, which I started out talking about before getting distracted in the last paragraph :). Not everyone is going to want to work from scratch, and after a certain point I'm not sure this is wholly desirable if any sort of continuity is desired.

I go to old sources as a Hellenic recon because--well, because it's fun :)--but also because while some standards are evolving they are not set in stone, and because there are plenty of areas which really have not been worked out that much.

However, my first resources when I started trying to put heathen rituals together were things likie Gundarsson's Teutonic Religion. They were more accessible, of course--but mainly, they provided a good idea of what modern heathens were actually doing these days. (Okay, so Gundarsson's liturgy isn't necessarily the best example here, I know I'll never be doing anything that high-church--but you see my point. :)) If there was wrong info in there, that's what I used. Hell, what did I know? And, honestly, as a brand-new heathen just trying to figure out the system, I wanted to know that what I was doing was at least close to what other folks were doing. As it happens, I like to do the additional research. Not everyone will. Not everyone should have to. And not all of those who do are going to want to make changes from a liturgy that they know and love--and that works!--because of new information. I'm not sure I would. If it turned out that all the old info was wrong and the ancients actually sumbeled with milk? Well, I'm sticking with mead anyway.

So (since I do have a reconstructionist bent) I do feel like it's important to be as accurate as possible when recreating a new liturgy, because whatever you end up with, it's going to stick once the religion starts to attract folks who just want to be there and honor the gods. I certainly see that notion in action in Hellenic reconstructionism. Once you've got that standard, though, I think you have to accept that the extent to which you can make changes later is going to be limited. There's no Hellenic pope who can say "Okay, remember the way we used to make linations? Well, that was wrong and from now on we're going to do this." Not a big issue currently but, assuming a certain rate of growth, it probably will be someday.

Even on a larger scale I can see this in play--it's not just a matter of outdated practices hanging on because people don't know any better, it also has to do with those practices having become a part of the modern tradition. I can kind of see this in ADF (not a reconstructionist faith so not the best comparison, but it's t he one I've got :)). IIRC there's a specific statement somewhere that if something is found to be incorrect, the thing to do is change it. And this does happen--eliminating books from the recommended reading that have been found inaccurate, etc. But if it's something core (like the Dumezilian tripartite thing) it tends to stay. And, you know, if it works, that's cool; ADF's liturgy has gotten to the point where it stands alone in spite of its sources. And ADF is a neopagan organization in any case. But for a religion to succeed it has to have some solidity, I think.

I guess what I'm thinking is that...well, for one thing, I'm thinking that there's no real solution here. You can't build a solid religion if you're always going to be changing the details. But without that option, can you call these religions reconstructionist?

Sometimes when I think about things like Why, I think of how I would explain them to my children.

So, why is it that I take a fairly reconstructionist approach to religion?

And the thought came to me of cheesecake. Perhaps because I make it so often for the feast following a ritual.

Say you want to get to know someone, be on good terms with them, and you don't know much about them but you do know that they like cheesecake. (You know that their friends in the past had made them plain cheesecake and they enjoyed it.) You'd make them a cheesecake.

And maybe as you got to know them a little better, you'd put some strawberries on top, or mix in some crumbled brownies, or even make a chocolate cheesecake instead--additions or changes that go with cheesecake.

What you wouldn't do is mix in some brussels sprouts, or top it with barbecue sauce. Because, as good as brussels sprouts or barbecue sauce might be in other contexts, they are not cheesecake-compatible foods.

It's a matter of doing what you perceive will be enjoyed and well-received.

---

I am, actually, a semi-reconstructionist. Mostly this has to do with differences of theology rather than of practice (and with the incomplete nature of known info), but I also think that a better word for what many recons do might be "revivalist," because that word would indicate more strongly that we are bringing an old faith back to life and trying to put it in a modern context and give it meaning there, rather than trying to recreate the context in which it originally existed.