I have been a Neopagan of some sort for a decade. Having been exposed to many different Neopagan faiths in my quest to understand the divine, and having actually practiced a few of those faiths, I have seen my share of differing needs, methods and goals among those who count themselves Neopagan. Many arguments in Neopaganism, however, can often be reduced to one central dichotomy: the tension that exists between scholarship and historical veracity, on the one hand, and on the other hand the need for modern innovation and personal experience. I would like to offer my own thoughts on where I fall in the spectrum in the hope it might create a dialogue to spur further discussion.
Most pagan religions ally themselves too strongly with one end or the other. Too little scholarship and historical awareness lead to solipsism and flights of fantasy. Too little room for modern innovation and personal experience leads to stale museum piece religions and dry academic discourse at the expense of meaningful relations with the gods. At one end of the Neopagan spectrum stand well-meaning but utterly clueless individuals who claim to be in touch with ancient Atlantean dolphin masters; at the other end stand intellectually sharp but often humorless pedants whose idea of religion is debating the minutiae of some obscure text.
What attracted to me to ADF Druidry was what I perceived as a reasonable median between said extremes. ADF respects scholarship, but that scholarship is not about recreating Iron Age practices. Rather, it is about illuminating how people can forge meaningful connections with divinity in the modern age. ADF scholarship does not automatically preclude modern innovation and personal mystical experiences.
Nonetheless, even within the broad middle ground adopted by ADF, one can find variances of opinion, with individual preferences skirting one end or another. When it comes to scholarship and history versus personal gnosis and modernism, which should win? I cautiously assert that when there is a disagreement between the two, it is the former which should be given precedence.
The problem with personal gnosis is how to consensually validate those experiences. Some unscrupulous individuals in Neopaganism keenly fabricate their ‘great mystical insights’ in order to give themselves status within the community, to sell books, or simply to garner attention. Pruning the charlatans from the earnest truth seekers becomes an issue. Where outright duplicity is ruled out, one must question whether individual mystical revelation is an authentic experience with a supernatural force, or whether it was a bad chemical reaction to the spicy burrito one ate the other day. Finally, even if a mystical experience is genuine, it does not necessarily make it universal. In other words, whatever transcendent advice Brighid gave you the other night may not benefit me or others. Personal mysticism is … well, highly personal.
Scholarship and historical records do not offer a divergent reality among different individuals. Primary texts and archeological remnants cannot be dismissed as products of the imagination. They are tangible artifacts of a cultural reality who knew the gods closely. They point rather objectively to what was or was not done in the past. The writings and material artifacts of our ancestors are our greatest source of insight into their religions.
And yet, any true scholar or historian must be careful not to erect a panacea out of scholarship or history. For while writings and material remains can not be disputed, their logical interpretations certainly can be. Theories are simply assertions that fit known facts; they can be overturned if new facts come to light. More so, if there are certain “mystics” who have an interest in fabricating otherworldly communications to win attention and book revenues, there are “scholars” who have an interest in fabricating theories to fit their personal or political agendas. The “fluffy”aspects of Neopaganism that many people complain about are themselves often the product of atrocious scholarship of previous generations. Margaret Murray’s now thoroughly discredited hypothesis of a universal witch cult is still with us, and probably has done more damage to the credibility of Neopaganism than any individual flake’s supposed communication with Atlantean dolphin masters.
To get around the limitations of both mysticism and scholarship, both are needed. They should exist as a polarity, rather than a dichotomy. They should exist in dialogue with one another. But the scholar’s pen must guide the mystic’s intuition.
Let us say you meditated the other night, and you told me that Thor came down from the clouds and revealed himself dramatically to you, showing you an aspect of himself that isn’t mentioned anywhere in Norse Lore. I will take what you told me and compare it to the bulk of known Norse Lore on Thor. If what you say simply does not conform to the general spirit of extant Lore about Thor, I will be highly inclined to dismiss it as a product of your imagination. If however what you tell me supplements rather than supplants the historical record on Thor, then I will allow for the possibility you had a genuine mystical experience. If other people have mystical experiences on Thor that are similar to your own, then I think the resulting collective gnosis is entitled to even more validity. The point is that we are using scholarship as a kind of yardstick to validate personal gnosis.
In regards to tradition versus modernity, I simply feel any tradition that works in the modern world should be kept, while what doesn’t should be scrapped. For instance, gifting the holy powers with offerings in exchange for their good will was the central concept of ancient Indo-European religions, and still retains its validity today. However, one of those offerings – animal sacrifice – no longer works in the modern age due to various cultural and sanitary considerations, and therefore should be forgotten.
We can and should have mystical experiences that go beyond what is written in some text or another. We can and should innovate and modernize Iron Age religions for the Digital Age. But without the guiding light of scholarship to reveal the praxis of the ancients, such pursuits would quickly become untethered to anything our ancestors would recognize. Scholarship is the bones of the druid man or woman; personal revelation is the flesh. The latter is measured against the former; if modern mysticism can wrap comfortably around a known skeleton then we have a healthy human being. If it does not, then we must discard it lest we create some ungainly homunculus.
