AIM or Yahoo! Messenger:
GTDreamsmith

Counterpoint: Traditional Paganism

These days, I often come across sites bearing quotes such as this: "The wiccan pattern of eight festivals has no basis in ancient pagan practice." My immediate response to this sort of statement is usually, "...and your point is?" But it's usually all too clear that the author does have a point, and what that point is. Like the author of the page this quote comes from, they are usually under the mistaken impression that this fact is or should somehow be relevant to paganism today.

Some people have claimed in the past that their modern pagan traditions are in some way the preservation of an ancient tradition, either passed down in secret for generations or accurately reconstructed. The old myth about the origins of Wicca is a similar story. Many people these days doubt the truth of these claims. Others cling to them strongly. But what's particularly annoying are those on both sides who somehow think it actually matters whether they're true or not!

It's an interesting historical question. And if these claims are not true, people shouldn't be claiming they are. But this has nothing to do with the validity of any religion, belief-system, or set of practices. Unless you're conducting historical research, why should you care?

This obsession with "ancient roots" and reconstructionism, when taken too far, becomes one of the most serious problems with the paganism today, and threatens to undercut our credibility, just as it has in the past. In insisting upon historical accuracy, the reconstructionists feed the silly notion that it's somehow important that their beliefs, rituals, and practices accurately reflect ancient paganism. But unless someone invents a time machine, it's highly unlikely they'll ever get it correct, and even if they did happen to do so, they'd have no way of knowing it. This only provides fodder for critics who point out that modern paganism doesn't look much like ancient paganism. (Of course, the beliefs and practices of modern Christians are also quite different from those of ancient Christians, but this fact never seems to come up.)

The funny thing is, the people pointing this out are usually criticizing modern paganism for what is in fact it's greatest virtue.

One of the best reasons why someone might reject "traditional paganism" was, oddly enough, summed up rather nicely in a quote I found on a site about traditional paganism! And I quote:

"One of the most difficult things for modern people of all persuasions to grasp is the fact that the past was different from the present. Things we take for granted now simply did not exist until someone discovered or invented them. Try explaining to a modern child what life was like before television or before the invention of the infernal combustion engine and you may start to get some idea of the vast gulfs of time and experience which divide us from our distant ancestors who had never even seen a wheel or a metal object."

I agree completely. The past was different from the present. The author recognizes this, but the fact doesn't seem to have sunk in, since the author then denies the painfully obvious conclusion: that the beliefs and practices of ancients pagans are not terribly relevant to us living in the modern world. Practices that were sensible for a country-dweller five millennia ago are unlikely to be useful for an urban pagan of today.

Wisdom is not supposed to simply be passed on, it is supposed to be refined. How else are we to advance and improve? But if that is the case, attempting to hold on to ancient traditions passed down unchanged or to reconstruct them perfectly is a step in the wrong direction! Our knowledge is supposed to advance over time. If your beliefs and rituals are unchanged over thousands of years, one wonders how you've managed to dogmatically hold on to your ignorance in the face of a changing world and the constant flow of new information into our lives that must be accommodated. The world is different. We have new knowledge, new ways of life, and new problems. For any religion to be at all useful today, it must be different than it was thousands of years ago. If it hasn't significantly evolved to adapt to the times, it's relevance to modern people is just about zero.

When you want to know about the physics of moving bodies, do you look for an ancient text by Aristotle or do you grab a modern physics textbook? Which action to you think is more likely to give you accurate and useful answers? If you're in charge of setting up the guidance system for a rocket to launch a weather satellite, whose ideas about physics are you going to use?

Perhaps my long association with computers has tainted my perspective, but as I see it, the older something is, the more likely it is to be obsolete. And without a doubt, traditional paganism is obsolete. I'm not a farmer, why would I care about some fertility god, much less about how accurately some ancient fertility ritual reflects the practices of ancient pagans? My only reason for caring would be if there was some way these could be adapted for present concerns. But in that case, I need to be concerned with how to adapt it, to change it, to make it something new! The last thing in the world I should be concerned about is historical accuracy -- the more historically accurate it is, the less likely it is to be useful to me now.

Too many pagans seem to be embarrassed about the newness of their paths, rather than pointing to it proudly as one of its best virtues. When someone says, "That's not how ancient pagans did it", the only appropriate response is, "Of course not, we've learned a great deal since then. Ancient pagans didn't drive cars or use computers, either. Are you planning to give up yours any time soon?"

An interest in ancient pagans is not a bad thing: one should always draw information from all sources available, and that includes the past. But lately things have gone too far. Include it, sure, but we should definitely not be limited to it, nor should we be afraid to modify or even reject when we find something else to be better. "Knowledge" from the past should not be so much revered as suspected, and the further from the past it comes, the more skeptical one should be.

The world is different. Look around the world as it is today for inspiration. The gods relevant to your modern life are unlikely to be found in some history book, or when they are, the ways in which they are relevant are almost certainly different. Given that, a different approach is probably in order, don't you think?

If paganism is to survive in the modern age, we must find our truths in the world around us as it is today, not solely in the beliefs and practices of those who died millennia ago. Our gods should be modern gods, found in the modern world. Our practices must be modern practices, suited to our modern world.

It's high time we started putting the neo back in neopaganism.

Afterword (2002-06-07):

This has definately been the most controversial rant on my site. In that, I am neither surprised nor disappointed. However, it has also generated the most misunderstanding, so I have updated it in the hopes of better explaining what I'm on about. I did change a word or two in a few places above, where it didn't clearly say what I really want to say, and I feel the need to add some additional comments, to clarify just who it is I'm complaining about, and why.

This rant should not be taken as blanket attack on reconstructionists in general. Most reconstructionists are great people doing a great service for us all by doing the serious research needed to rediscover the ways of the ancient pagans. I don't think we should be obsessed with the past, but I do think we should always consider as many sources of information as possible, and the past is another great source, and often what we find can be readily adapted to modern use. I said most of this above, but I repeat it here because some readers did not see me as clearly differentiating between an interest in the past and an obsession to the point where nothing is valid unless it's ancient. Those who strive for historical accuracy in their own paths are fine, those who insist upon historical accuracy in everyone's paths are the problem.

Thus, the person who is the genuine target of this piece is the one who refuses to accept the validity of anything unless it has roots in the past. This is the person who tells us this path or that belief is bogus because it's not historically accurate. In addition to just being flat out intolerant, this kind of person exacerbates the problem by making others feel inadequate about their own beliefs due to their modernity. How do people deal with this? All too often, they lie about the history of their beliefs. These intolerant individuals are the reason why, in the past, people have made up fake histories for their paths. Because so many people will not accept a path if it is not ancient, people try to justify their path by trying to assert that it is ancient. Thus, the obsession with "ancient roots" is what caused all the bad research and bogus historical claims to begin with.

Like reconstructionists, I believe bad research and bogus claims are things we should strive to eliminate. However, unlike some reconstructionists, I realize that it will continue as long as people keep thinking "ancient roots" are required or important if one is to have a valid spiritual path. Reconstructionists who choose to be reconstructionists because they find this is the best way they can honor the gods have my full support, and often they have even earned my admiration. But those who insist that others who do not choose to do as they do are somehow practicing a lesser faith, or criticize the paths of others for lacking a historical basis or accuracy, are one of the most serious problems facing paganism today. Their attitudes are counterproductive, and they will ensure that bogus claims continue to be made and continue to undermine the credibility of us all.

A little tolerance would go a long way towards solving the very problem they complain about most.