A few days ago, I wrote this article and posted it on tumblr, and I thought I'd get a debate going here, as well. The following is abridged from my original post, which you can read here: (EDIT: Can't link directly to the article itself, unfortunately, but it's in there: http://eawulf.tumblr.com/)
Keep in mind, it's not the most thoroughly thought-out "article", and is really more of a rambling on a thought I had.
Some definitions:
Orthodoxy: "Correct" belief in a religious context
Orthopraxy: "Correct" behavior/action in a religious context
Paganism: Reviving/reconstructing an historical polytheist religion of Europe, involving a lot of trial-and-error in terms of creating something that can work in the modern world (examples: Heathenry, Hellenismos, and so on)
Neopaganism: Creating a brand-new religion sometimes based more loosely on those historical religions but with a lot more emphasis on modernity, and optionally with elements from other religions from other parts of the world; often (though not always) being the personal construction of a single individual or a group of people (examples: Wicca, modern Druidry, and so on).
*****
Because modern US overculture is so influenced by Protestant denominations of Christianity, which often place orthodoxy far over orthopraxy, US Paganism and Neopaganism often follow suit, even if to a lesser degree. There is a sense that skepticism and atheism are not compatible with Paganism or Neopaganism, because some sort of belief in Gods or spellcrafts are considered central. Meanwhile, there’s also a sense that how people practice their Pagan or Neopagan religions is largely up to them, and there’s no truly “correct” way except in what way works for a given person or group.
In many cases, I agree. However, I also find it ironic that there’s no consistent orthopraxy in modern Paganism and Neopaganism, while at the same time, there’s at least some sense of orthodoxy in that atheism, skepticism, and other “materialist viewpoints” are regarded almost as taboo.
Personally, I’m far more in favor of orthopraxy than orthodoxy, at least in terms of identification with a specific religion. At some point, allowing anyone to do whatever they want under a certain named identity can cause the exact meaning of that identity to become meaningless. This is detrimental to forming communities; fellow Pagans and Neopagans cannot easily find people of like mind and practice to bond with, and existent communities become highly prone to fracture. Since orthodoxy is far more restrictive and impossible to enforce, I argue that there should be some orthopraxic standards within Pagan and Neopagan religions, decided upon by the particular communities.
However, I don’t believe such orthopraxy should be dogmatic across entire religions. For example, I identify as an Anglo-Saxon(esque) Heathen. I have certain beliefs about the Gods, many of which will be different than what other Anglo-Saxon Heathens believe. However, my rituals will differ only a little from already-existent ones, and I’ll recite prayers that already exist or at least are adapted from them. These will exist in addition to rituals I construct and prayers I write myself. That said, there will be specific “must-haves” within these rituals that must be present for validity, based on currently-existing customs.
As with all things, the degree to which I believe orthopraxy and orthodoxy should exist is on a spectrum, not a binary. There are some things I believe Heathens should regard as softly “orthodox”, such as Woden/Oðinn being a God to fear and be weary of, Þunor/Þórr being a friend to all humanity, and so on. [But] what’s considered “orthodox” should be regarded as a permanent work-in-progress, subject to revision based on the needs of Heathens at any time. After all, we have no true central authority, and should always endeavor to avoid one.
This is a very tricky situation modern Paganism and Neopaganism find themselves in. How do we keep certain identifications from becoming meaningless in discussions, and at the same time keep established restrictions from descending into all-too familiar dogmatism? Isaac Bonewits, founder of the American Druid organization Ár nDraíocht Féin (“Our Own [Druidry]”), or ADF, established early on the “Doctrine of Archdruid Fallibility”; that is to say, everyone is prone to mistakes regardless of authority on a given subject. I think if any other Pagan or Neopagan organization were to establish any degree of written orthodoxies and orthopraxies, they would be wise to establish something similar right off the bat as the one thing that cannot change.
It’s a balancing act, and one that we will always be struggling with as Pagans and Neopagans. Perhaps we should always struggle with it. What works now will not necessarily work in the future, and our Pagan/Neopagan descendants might believe and practice in ways that we may not immediately recognize. At the same time, if what they call a “blót” doesn’t at least involve any form of sprinkling some kind of liquid on people by another person and in some way offering that same liquid to the Gods (whether believed to literally exist or not), I think we’d be right in regarding their application of the word “blót” to a fundamentally different ritual as incorrect.
Keep in mind, it's not the most thoroughly thought-out "article", and is really more of a rambling on a thought I had.
Some definitions:
Orthodoxy: "Correct" belief in a religious context
Orthopraxy: "Correct" behavior/action in a religious context
Paganism: Reviving/reconstructing an historical polytheist religion of Europe, involving a lot of trial-and-error in terms of creating something that can work in the modern world (examples: Heathenry, Hellenismos, and so on)
Neopaganism: Creating a brand-new religion sometimes based more loosely on those historical religions but with a lot more emphasis on modernity, and optionally with elements from other religions from other parts of the world; often (though not always) being the personal construction of a single individual or a group of people (examples: Wicca, modern Druidry, and so on).
*****
Because modern US overculture is so influenced by Protestant denominations of Christianity, which often place orthodoxy far over orthopraxy, US Paganism and Neopaganism often follow suit, even if to a lesser degree. There is a sense that skepticism and atheism are not compatible with Paganism or Neopaganism, because some sort of belief in Gods or spellcrafts are considered central. Meanwhile, there’s also a sense that how people practice their Pagan or Neopagan religions is largely up to them, and there’s no truly “correct” way except in what way works for a given person or group.
In many cases, I agree. However, I also find it ironic that there’s no consistent orthopraxy in modern Paganism and Neopaganism, while at the same time, there’s at least some sense of orthodoxy in that atheism, skepticism, and other “materialist viewpoints” are regarded almost as taboo.
Personally, I’m far more in favor of orthopraxy than orthodoxy, at least in terms of identification with a specific religion. At some point, allowing anyone to do whatever they want under a certain named identity can cause the exact meaning of that identity to become meaningless. This is detrimental to forming communities; fellow Pagans and Neopagans cannot easily find people of like mind and practice to bond with, and existent communities become highly prone to fracture. Since orthodoxy is far more restrictive and impossible to enforce, I argue that there should be some orthopraxic standards within Pagan and Neopagan religions, decided upon by the particular communities.
However, I don’t believe such orthopraxy should be dogmatic across entire religions. For example, I identify as an Anglo-Saxon(esque) Heathen. I have certain beliefs about the Gods, many of which will be different than what other Anglo-Saxon Heathens believe. However, my rituals will differ only a little from already-existent ones, and I’ll recite prayers that already exist or at least are adapted from them. These will exist in addition to rituals I construct and prayers I write myself. That said, there will be specific “must-haves” within these rituals that must be present for validity, based on currently-existing customs.
As with all things, the degree to which I believe orthopraxy and orthodoxy should exist is on a spectrum, not a binary. There are some things I believe Heathens should regard as softly “orthodox”, such as Woden/Oðinn being a God to fear and be weary of, Þunor/Þórr being a friend to all humanity, and so on. [But] what’s considered “orthodox” should be regarded as a permanent work-in-progress, subject to revision based on the needs of Heathens at any time. After all, we have no true central authority, and should always endeavor to avoid one.
This is a very tricky situation modern Paganism and Neopaganism find themselves in. How do we keep certain identifications from becoming meaningless in discussions, and at the same time keep established restrictions from descending into all-too familiar dogmatism? Isaac Bonewits, founder of the American Druid organization Ár nDraíocht Féin (“Our Own [Druidry]”), or ADF, established early on the “Doctrine of Archdruid Fallibility”; that is to say, everyone is prone to mistakes regardless of authority on a given subject. I think if any other Pagan or Neopagan organization were to establish any degree of written orthodoxies and orthopraxies, they would be wise to establish something similar right off the bat as the one thing that cannot change.
It’s a balancing act, and one that we will always be struggling with as Pagans and Neopagans. Perhaps we should always struggle with it. What works now will not necessarily work in the future, and our Pagan/Neopagan descendants might believe and practice in ways that we may not immediately recognize. At the same time, if what they call a “blót” doesn’t at least involve any form of sprinkling some kind of liquid on people by another person and in some way offering that same liquid to the Gods (whether believed to literally exist or not), I think we’d be right in regarding their application of the word “blót” to a fundamentally different ritual as incorrect.
Last edited:
