Polytheistic Reconstructionism

Let's talk Polytheistic Reconstructionism.

Firstly, Polytheistic reconstructionism (Reconstructionism) is an approach to paganism first emerging in the late 1960s to early 1970s, and gathered momentum in the 1990s to 2000s, and still going strong today. Reconstructionism attempts to re-establish historical polytheistic religions in the modern world. - Wikipedia, Polytheistic Reconstructionism

The term Reconstruction (Recon) is thrown around a lot in the Hellenic community, however, many do not realize that Polytheistic Recon is a methodology to approach reconstructing ancient religions. It does not simply mean: Do exactly as the ancients did. That would just be re-enactment.

What follows are key excerpts from Bil Linzie's excellent paper "Reconstructionism's Role in Modern Heathenry" found here: http://www.angelfire.com/nm/seidhman/reconstruction-c.pdf

This will give us a good grounding on how another tradition is approaching reconstruction and hopefully we can start thinking about how we can apply the methodology ourselves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reconstructionism is a philosophical and theoretical approach to revitalizing Germanic heathenry in the modern era.

The questions should now be clearly defined: ``What exactly is reconstructionism, what differentiates it from any other approach and, lastly, why is it even important?'' Reconstructionism is simply this: Reconstructionism is an experiment pure and simple: "If we take the worldview of XYZ-people, and apply it in our own lives, what is the experience?"

The basis of reconstructionism is to reconstruct the 'worldview' of any group of people and apply to gain experience. The simplest of these reconstructive efforts will be completely physical in nature such as carving a runestone utilizing only the tools which were known to have existed during the period and among the culture which one is studying. Other physical-experiments would be that of baking bread, making cloth, blacksmithing, animal husbandry, gardening, boat-building, preparing and putting on a feast, carving wooden utensils, and so on. There is little difference between such an approach taken by modern heathens and those experiments already being conducted by anthropology students engaging in experiential anthropology.

The next questions should probably be ``Why would anyone have to engage in such activities just to belong to a religion?'' What is the relationship between reconstructing the physical processes of artifact production and religion? The assumption that the reconstructionist is working under, however, is that there is no real religion to be had. For the reconstructionist, 'religion' is something that is culturally independent and self-contained and what the reconstructionist is seeking to experience is not the religion but the worldview, the mindset of the the people in question, which gave birth to certain specific spiritual practices.7 The central spiritual practice of the modern heathen is the blót, for example, a sacrifice the regin (ON), the gods, but the reconstructionist isn't looking to rebuild the ceremony so much as he is trying to experience why the ceremony was even important in the first place. The reconstructionist is looking not for a religion but for that which underlies spiritual practice.

The reconstructionist must always be aware that history is not being relived, nor can it be perfectly duplicated. That is not the point of reconstructionism in modern heathenry; the actual point is the attempt to gain the experience of what life was probably like because it is a collection of experiences and perceptions about the world in a specific way which was the matrix in which heathenry was germinated and grown and, by extension, in which it evolved.

While a 'true believer' may find this situation to be paradoxical, the reconstructionist finds such

a position to be a fertile place worthy of study and research. The 'assumption' is that 'belief' must be a necessary component to modern heathen praxis. The reconstructionist questions the concept of 'belief,' though: What was the Old Norse or the Old High German or the Old Saxon word for 'belief?' Was the word used among heathens or was it created to represent an early Christian concept?

The heathen engaging in reconstructionist research is in a good position, holding to no specific beliefs or dogmas to speak of,8 to question everything: Is such-and-such fact, or are we assuming it to be fact? What is the evidence supporting the alleged fact? Here are some reconstructionist style questions:

1. How much of the eddaic material is Christian interpolation or interpretation?

2. Why doesn't the tribal separation of the Vanir versus the Ásir show up in gothic, Old High German, Old Saxon, and Anglo-Saxon texts?

3. Was Óðínn viewed as 'the High God' in all Germanic linguistic branches?

4. Why does a heathen Afterlife show up only in later (eddaic) poetry while the sagas and heathen period skaldic poetry match the bulk of archaeological evidence that life was

continued in the grave?

Things to note:

1)  First, and foremost, it is important to understand that reconstructionism cannot replace adherence to a worldview. 'Adherence' implies that one is operating from the 'inside'; reconstructionism gathers its real power from being on the 'outside' looking in. The paradox is similar to the paradox of quantum physics where one is able investigate the motion of an electron but cannot at the same time know anything about its position and vice versa.

2)  Reconstructionism does not imply that one is engaged in reproducing or duplicating history. It is not a time machine where one is able to step back into history and experience it first-hand. It is rather 'a methodical approach to studying those forces and processes which most likely gave rise to heathenry.'10

3)  The end-product of reconstructionism is not to re-create early germanic cultures in the 21st century; knowledge only of the ancient processes is the only goal.

4)  Reconstructed heathen worldviews will only function as an aid to clearing the mirror of history so that modern adherents will have a chance to experience more fully the picture in a historically accurate fashion, but even at its best, reconstructionism will never be able to completely clear the glass.

5)  Reconstructionism is an approach to studying the historical foundations of heathenry; it is not, nor can it be 'an approach to 'living as a heathen.' 'Living as a heathen' must be from within an activated worldview.

6)  Our detractors with all their arguments against reconstructionism are absolutely correct. Their arguments come from within an 'activated worldview,' historically accurate or not; our arguments are always from the perspective outside looking at usually more than one worldview in a static fashion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taking all this information and applying it to a Hellenic mind set:

What is the Hellenic worldview? What time period are you looking at? 

Are you considering the lives of all peoples? The elite, the writers, the farmers, the women, the children, the slaves?

What did the ancient Hellenes believe "made a good person"? 

What were the social, religious, political, etc. conditions that affected such views? We often talk about "Hellenic Ethics". What are these ethics? How did they come to be? Who determined what was considered ethical? Who determined what was seen as good or bad? Did ethics change throughout the course of Hellenic history?

When looking at literature from the time, what was happening in Athens at the time that said piece was written? What were the political events, struggles, attitudes of the time? How did these things affect what the author was writing about? Was the author speaking for all the Hellenic peoples or just the elite? 

If the gods were seen as the ultimate authority, did the author use the gods in his play to voice the opinions of the masses? Or the elite? Or himself? Was the play written to criticize the elite, or spread their propaganda to the masses?


These are just a few of the many, many questions that arise when applying the methodology of Polytheistic Reconstructionism. It is not simply about "doing what the ancients did". It's about a deeper understanding about why the practices and beliefs existed, so that we can relive an ancient religion in a modern context. 

The Idea of Patron Gods...

A recent discussion on HoM's Facebook page regarding the article on Patheos.com titled "Our Gods Are Not Safe" , has given me an idea for this blog post. 

One of HoM's members, who is also a practicing Heathen of the Norse Tradition, commented on the article: 

"That's why in terms of Heathenry the worship of the gods was and continues to be a group thing. Much easier to enter into a gift-cycle with them as a group. [sic] This is not to say that you can't have your own personal reverence of the gods, or even be drawn to particular ones, but you don't necessarily want to have personal relationships with them. 

For example, in the lore if a god was in a personal relationship with a human, it usually didn't bode well for the human." 

This comment got me thinking about Hellenismos, and whether or not it is appropriate to incorporate the modern Pagan ideas of Patron/ess deities, and personal relationships with the Theoi.

For those of you who are not familiar with the terms 'Patron and Patroness', here is a definition by Elani Temperance on her blog Baring the Aegis:

"Modern patronage, in this context, is the support or encouragement of a patron, where the patron or patroness  is a divine being. In these relationships, the active party is often the deity in question, who claims the passive human. Some will describe a sense of 'being owned' by their patron. The human becomes a conduit for the work and will of the patron in question, and is required to spend large portions of their lives in active service to that deity. The bond between deity and human is personal."

Lets also note that Patron = Male God, Patroness = Female Goddess. 

While the idea of Patron deities is a popular one among Neo-Pagans, it's not exactly a well supported idea in Hellenismos. Here is what Elani has to say on the subject:

"... patronage is not part of Hellenismos, and it was not part of ancient Hellenic life.

Hellenism has its own beautiful system of kharis (religious reciprocity), and because of that, there is no need to bring in a modern concept like patrons. When we, in Hellenismos, petition the Gods for aid, we always do so with an offering. This offering can be incense, a libation, a food offering or anything else. It must be something tangible. Good thoughts and intentions don't count. This offering is given freely, joyfully, with pleasure, out of respect and love for the Gods. We ask what we feel we need--sometimes that's a new job, sometimes just a sentiment like honor and prosperity to the household--and never expect to be granted this request. Petitions aren't bribery. We give to the Gods and should They feel inclined to grand us our request, we thank Them by offering to Them again, to which the Gods might respond, to which we will sacrifice, and so on. This circular practice of voluntary giving is called kharis, and through it, we built relationships with all Theoi.

In ancient Hellas, there were priests; most of them were chosen through hereditary lines and often served short terms in the temple of a deity their family was connected to, either through the family line or by choice. There were also priests who chose to come into the service of a Theos or Theia; they were voluntary priests and they devoted themselves to the God(s) they were drawn to or especially thankful to. Neither type of priest would have worshipped only the deity they were in service to, and all would have attended state festivals, and most likely had a household practice that included a large number of deities. Note that the active party in these relationships is the human, not the deity in question.

There are a few (mythical) exceptions to this rule that could be seen as patronage: Athena was a guide and aid for Odysseus and his son, and many Gods were (temporary) aids of Hēraklēs. These were heroes, chosen by the Theoi to suffer a specific fate and to rise above it as heroes. If you are Hellenistic and you feel you are being divinely aided to make it through such a path then by all means, say you have a patron. If not, it feels like hubris (excessive pride or self-confidence) to me to make that claim. Of course, there is a degree of personal viewpoint here (i.e. we can never judge the lives of others; what feels like an epic quest of hardship to you, may seem like a breeze to me and the other way around), so for safety's sake, I stick with my viewpoint that patronage has no place in Hellenism, because as much as our lives may feel like an epic journey, we are not all Odysseus."

As we can see in the above quote, and Elani is a reliable source, patronage was not a part of ancient Hellenic practice. Also, there is the issue with modern Neo-Pagans whom 'take on' a Patron/ess and do not work with any other members of the pantheon. While there is essentially nothing wrong with this, this is not polytheism, and especially not Hellenismos. 

"Polytheism means that many gods are worshipped not only at the same place and at the same time, but by the same community and by the same individual; only the totality of the gods constitutes the divine world. […] To overlook or despise a god is to curtail the richness of the world and hence the fullness of man. - Walter Burkert

To practice Hellenismos, is to honour all the deities of the pantheon. Our levels of worship may ebb and flow depending on our lives, our personal struggles and situations, (example: if your marriage is struggling, you'll feel a pull to work more with Hera, Goddess of Marriage), but all in all, one must remember to honour all the Olympians, lest one get offended. As the article 'Our Gods Are Not Safe' mentioned, especially when it comes to the Greek Gods, jealously is a common thread that flows through the mythos of our gods. And if you view the Theoi in a slightly Jungian archetypical view point as I do, as expressed in my blog post 'Asteria's Personal Theogony', you will understand that favouring one deity over others for a long period of time will stunt your growth in spiritual development/enlightenment. 

To conclude this post, be wary of the person who claims to work with Hekate (or other Greek deity) and is therefore a practicing Hellenic. Hellenismos is the inclusion of all the Hellenic deities, with special focus on the Olympians, not just a focus on one or two.

A link to Elani Temperance's full blog post can be found here. 

EDIT:  I just wanted to add that a form of patronage did take place in Ancient Greece, but this was in a group setting and formed the basis of the religious cults. Cults sprung up all over Greece and were usually area specific. For example, the Cult of Aphrodite would appear on Cyprus where the Goddess was said to have sprung up from the sea foam (where she was "born"), or the Cult of Demeter and Persephone at Eleusis, which was tied into the myth about Persephone's return from the Underworld. However, even members of these cults still paid their respects to the other Olympians. 

Asteria's Personal Theogony

=================================================
The following is a post I wrote for another, more personal, blog of mine. I have reread the post, and while it does come off a bit 'ranty', my feelings on the subject have not changed. So here I present to you the original entry that was published January 28th, 2015.
=================================================


"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings having a human experience." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

I've wanted to write this post for a while so my readers can understand where I come from when I work with divinity. This is my own personal Theology. I didn't "create it"; it is and always has been my own Truth.

When one studies the Qabalah, they read about the four worlds: Atziluth, the World of Emanation, of pure divinity; Briah, the World of Creation, where the archetypes do dwell; Yetzirah, the World of Formation, ("Yetsirah" as in "making" is as opposed to "Beriah" as in "Creating": actually taking whatever matter that was created in the "Beriah" and shaping it into the basic elements); and finally Assiah, the World of Action.

According to Carl Jung, human beings have collective unconscious. It is through this collective unconscious that humans throughout the ages have accessed the same archetypes of Briah and brought them into the world of Yetzirah, for use in Assiah. 

Think about it: we all have access to the same Briatic world. "Briah is a level above that at which most people operate but – a very important point! – it is the natural level of the awakened or fulfilled human being. Awakening unto Briah is the spiritual destiny of every person, the Next Step of humanity, and the goal of spiritual initiation. One who has attained this is called an Adept." - source unknown.

Through observing the natural world, through ritual, meditation, prayer, and petitions, ancient peoples tapped into the Briatic World and found the archetypes: The Mother, The Wise Old Man, The Crafts Person, The Warrior, etc. Depending on the needs, desires, experiences, geographical locations, struggles, etc., shaped how these ancient people brought these archetypes down from the Briatic World, the World of Creation, to Yetzirah, the World of Formation. 

This explains why when one looks across cultures, similar deities appear. The Wise Man appears as Odin, Zeus, Christ, Thoth, and others. The Mother appears as Frigg, Demeter, The Virgin Mary, Mut, and others. However, as any Pagan knows, things are not so simple. 

We humans are complicated creatures. The archetypes appear in our selves in varying forms and intensities. 

A childless woman will never fully understand the Mother archetype; that archetype plays a smaller role in her life. A woman may have been pregnant yet never been able to carry one to full term, or have experienced still birth. Or, a woman may have adopted another woman's children as her own, unable to get pregnant herself. These are the complexities of human life, and our gods, the Theoi especially, have been shaped to reflect this. 

To continue on with the Mother archetype, Demeter searched Heaven and Earth, and then the Underworld for Kore (Persephone) when she was abducted by Hades. She is the personification of the loving Mother, endlessly devoted to her child, where as Hera on the other hand, although she is a mother to many gods and wife to Zeus (Father of the Gods), she is maternally indifferent. Artemis is a virgin goddess and yet she assists women in childbirth. 

Therefore, in connecting with the archetypes in Briah, and reflecting our own human tendencies, struggles, and experiences from Assiah onto these archetypes, humans created/formed the egregores of the deities in Yetzirah. They were given names, realms of power, characteristics, and stories/myths. Through regular worship, devotion and working with these egregores they took on a "life" of their own. We fed them energy and they were able to grow and take form. As time went on, they strengthened. They became independently active astral beings. 

The power of the Theoi is very real. The myths tell us they they have been known to get involved in mortal life. They take sides, have preferences, and show favouritism. They are interested in our lives because we ultimately created them, and without our continued worship, devotion and active involvement, the gods sort of slip into an inactive state. The egregores are well established and can be tapped into again, however. That is why once "dead religions" can be brought back to life. This is also the reason why I am such a stickler for tradition: 

When one works with a Pantheon, it is imperative to take into account the original practitioners. These are the people who created these gods and goddesses and they did so very specifically. No deity was created haphazardly. There was a deep purpose and meaning; each God filled a void or explained the human condition. It irritates me to no end when modern pagans grab a god or goddess at random and try to attach attributes which do not fit into the creation of said deity. If you want to do such a thing - then create your own, new deity! Do not undo and disrespect the work, the time, the energy, the worship, the prayers, the petitions, the rituals, the ceremonies, and the sacrifices of the ancient peoples. These gods were a reflection of themselves and their lives. 

Because we are all human beings living the human condition, deities can be called on to assist us in modern times. Zeus is still a wise man, full of lust, life and male sexual desire. Yet, the human species has evolved and it is no longer acceptable to have a God who goes around disguising himself and sleeping with a million mortals. This needs to be addressed with Zeus. It should be made clear in our works with Zeus that this type of behaviour is unacceptable and if he wants your devotion, which they do, he needs to take into account modern life and changes. 

A friend of mine believes that the gods have changed along side humans. That she cannot imagine working with a "stagnant" deity. In my mind, the Theoi are not stagnant, per se; they represent archetypes which are "set in stone", yet they are the Yetziraic creations of said archetypes so they can be manipulated. It is up to us to communicate with the Theoi and let them know what we need them for.

The Theoi can "change" or "grow" in a sense. Take Hekate: she has become a popular go-to goddess for most modern Pagans. Because of Euripides' play Medea, in which Medea is portrayed as a witch whom is a priestess of Hekate, and Hekate being Persephone's companion in the underworld, modern Pagans have taken the Maiden Goddess of the  Crossroads and transformed her into a Crone (sometimes Triple Aspect) Goddess of Witchcraft, Magic, Necromancy, and the After Life. 

So many people have done just this, for so long, that Hekate has begun to take on that role. No doubt, there is some truth behind the stories. Hekate did have associations with the underworld, although not to the extent that modern Pagans now attribute. The question is: is this wrong?

I personally believe that for the Theoi to remain relevant today that some adjustments need to be made. It is not a far stretch to attach Hekate to Necromancy since she did escort Demeter into Hades in search for Kore, and was Persephone's companion. The problem I have is when someone asks Hekate for help with matters involving love. There is no evidence that the ancient Hellenics associated Hekate with love; that was Aphordite's turf. So why, oh why, do modern Pagans try to place associations where they do not exist? 

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Hellenic Pantheon is a unit, like a puzzle, and each deity is a puzzle piece. You cannot work with one or a few and get the whole picture. They are each aspects of different archetypes of the human condition. To become a full human being, we must acknowledge all aspects of ourselves, and not favour a few.

This, once again, is my own Theology. This is how I make sense of things, how I believe them to be. If I can think of anything else to add to this theory I will add it at another time as a *note*. As we evolve our ideas change. Nothing is really set in stone.