Some thoughts on Pagan Revivalism

This morning, I came across Astral’s latest podcast Paganism Rising where he has three modern practicing pagans discussing their faith. Now, I’m fascinated by what you could call pagan revivalism and the contemporary interest in the ancient spiritual practices, so I gave it a listen hoping for some interesting insight into this movement. I have to admit, I am somewhat guilty of dismissing modern paganism as ridiculous fantasy larping lacking in a coherent theology, but the phenomenon is interesting from a philosophical and a Christian perspective, and I believe it has less to do with theological pre-Christian beliefs and more to do with a 19th century Romantic reaction against both Christianity and the secular scientific Enlightenment without which it would not exist.

Nonetheless, I was hoping to hear some interesting theological apologetics on behalf of so-called paganism, but unfortunately, I was underwhelmed. But, because I do find the topic interesting, and I do think engaging with philosophical movements popular in our spheres has value I’m going to put down some thoughts and questions that came to me while listening to the guests talk.

Before I begin, I need to drop some caveats. What I’m putting down here is far from being definitive apologetics. These are my thoughts after listening at 1am after a long day of work. While I think that the spirit of what I’m writing is true, I’m sure to make some citable mistake and misquotations, therefore I am not opposed to further research and refinement.

Second, and this is the most important point, I am approaching this topic through my own faith as an Orthodox Christian. But I am writing as a layman, a substackian philosopher, a soapbox dilletante. Take it as you will and explore the subject through official theological channels.

The Good

First, I want to say that I am very sympathetic to the contemporary worldview put forth in this conversation. I’m happy that contemporary Americans are rejecting the secular worldview and embracing a sacred outlook on life. I might even go as far as saying that the Ancient Pagan World, or even the contemporary pagan traditions such as Shintoism are preferable to the materialist secular world we find ourselves in. The reverence towards family and tradition is commendable and I have more in common philosophically as an Orthodox Christian with the speakers than I do with most contemporary secularized Christians. Yes, you are right. Our culture is degenerate, for the most part disconnected from the axis mundi, from the divine, from everything good, and I find every attempt to embrace the sacred, even if misguided, a step in the right direction. I will return to this point later because it is critical to my critique.

Nomenclature and Definitions

What is paganism? The guests describe themselves as Germanic Heathens, Pagans, etc. What does that mean? When I say that I am a Christian it’s clear to all readers that I am a believer in Jesus Christ and it’s safe to assume that I believe that Jesus Christ is the incarnate God. I further define myself as an Orthodox Christian which tells you that I am a Baptized member of the Eastern Orthodox Church, officially the Orthodox Catholic Church. Based on that you the reader can assume that my beliefs align with nearly 2000 years of theological tradition. The title of Christian was first used in the Book of Acts.

But what does pagan mean. The word pagan is a Latin word, a word used by Roman Christians to describe people that did not believe in our God. It’s believed to be derived from the word paganus which is a slur for a simple person, something akin to the way we use the word “hick” today.

Ok, so we move on to the word “Germanic” and come across another Latin word. What does that mean? The word Germanic comes from Germani, the name given to the people living East of the Rhine by Julius Ceasar. These people weren’t a collective people, but differing tribes, and they didn’t call themselves Germanic. We don’t know what because they were illiterate and did not have a written tradition. What we know of them comes from Roman writings and the Romans called them Germani.

So, right off the start I’m confused. A Germanic Pagan. What does that mean? Taking the words based on their definition we have somebody that doesn’t believe in the Christian God from a people the Romans called Germani found east of the Rhine. That’s not much to go on compared to Orthodox meaning the right belief, Catholic meaning universal, and Christian meaning follower of Jesus Christ.

Of course, I know what they mean by Germanic Pagan in the context of this discussion, but I’m pointing out that their definition is a contemporary modern alternative 20th century definition devoid of any traditional meaning. Not only that, but the terminology is defined from the outside and even has hostile connotation. Therefore, if it doesn’t tell me anything about their faith and beliefs.

I skipped over Heathenism, because that one is even more confusing. A heathen is somebody who doesn’t follow a widely held religion. That term is more fitting in the contemporary world but also doesn’t tell me much because you can describe everyone from Scientologists to Native American Animists as a heathen.

Academic Definitions, Maybe?

So what we have here is modern Pagans. What is a modern Pagan, well from an academic standpoint modern Paganism is a series of new religious movements that are variously influenced by pre-modern people. There are two varieties of modern Pagans.

Eclectic: They take an undogmatic stance and use all sort of real and created sources to define a religious belief that is new but not Christian. For example Wicca, Thelema, Druidism, and all sorts of wild pop culture stuff.

Reconstructive: These Pagans aim to reconstruct the ancient beliefs of a specific people, region, ethnicity, etc. Our commentators here fit into this category, but it is a wide and varied category because you can include ancient Slavic faith, Dacian Zalmoxism, Hellenism, etc.

From listening to the conversation what we are discussing here is Reconstructive Heathenism or Germanic Heathenism. Academically defined as a new religion from the 20th century modeled on pre-Christian religion followed by the Germanic people of the Iron Age and Early Middle Age. The contemporary late 19th and early 20th century history of groups calling themselves Germanic Heathens is fascinating and has its origin in the Romantic movement. I will note, that the host, Astral, pointed this out on the podcast. Germanic Heathenism in its early 20th century form is politically tied in conversation with the Volkish Movement, Nazi Germany, and its resurgence is often intertwined with neo-Nazi groups. I mention this not as a value judgement but to point out that there is a historical and contemporary 20th century ethno-political element to groups calling themselves Germanic Heathenry. To this I add that Orthodox Christianity in my country was the faith and basis of the Iron Guard, so I am not making a political value judgement.

Anyways, I think I fairly defined the terms we are using, admittingly with a broad stroke and have not touched on the actual beliefs. Now I’m going to go into my criticism of the conversation. Sadly, the majority of it was not explaining beliefs or theological concepts of their faith but attacking Christianity so my critique will be along those lines.

Tradition

A reoccurring phrase that was repeated over and over was Tradition. The tradition of my ancestors, the tradition of my forefathers, the traditions of my people. But the word tradition is defined as a long-established custom or belief that has been passed on from one generation to another. But it wasn’t. The beliefs, rites, rituals, vaguely described in this podcast are not traditions passed on from one generation to another. They are reconstructions based on limited archeological evidence and fragmentary texts such as the Eddas passed down by Christians, historical accounts written by outsiders, and spurious deconstruction of folk beliefs practiced by recent Christian Europeans re-interpreted through 20th century anthropology. There is even a telling anecdote when one of the guests talks about his grandfathers as being very pious Christians. So, this belief, this tradition that we are talking about was not the religion of your fathers and your fathers fathers but of your somewhat vague ancestors. It wasn’t passed down through the unbroken chain of tradition and you aren’t honoring your grandfather’s belief and way of life because admittedly he was a man of Christ.

I personally love tradition. Every Sunday I take part in the Liturgy. The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has remained unchanged and used by the Orthodox Church since the 5th century, several hundred years before the oldest of the Eddas are dated. Every Sunday an Orthodox Christian in New York takes part in the same rite as an Orthodox Christian in Moscow, Tokyo, and Athens, and if an Orthodox Christian from the end of the 5th century were to be transported to my particular church in 2024, he would recognize the rite if not the language.

I find it absurd that a man who doesn’t follow the holy faith of his own grandfather would denigrate Christians and make a claim to tradition. I’m a Romanian, Dacia my ancient ancestors accepted Christ in the 3rd Century. It would be absurd to turn my back on my fathers faith, my grandathers faith, and nearly two thousand years of my peoples faith. I respect my forefathers and I believe they made the right decision to accept Christ as savior, and I would be nothing but a dog to question that unbroken tradition and replace it with some ridiculous neo-pagan Dacian reconstruction based on archeological fragments, even taking account of the fact that the historical and archeological artifacts of the Dacians far outnumber those of the Germanic peoples.

On this topic there is something to be said about the distinction between tradition with a capital T and traditions lowercase. You can define Traditions as critical cornerstone beliefs. For example, the Divine Liturgy, holy days, dogmatic interpretations, and you can define traditions as local, era specific, folkish behavior, superstitions such as throwing salt over your shoulder or lucky horseshoes, the type of paint you use to paint icons etc. Little t traditions can become elevated to big T traditions, or they can be forgotten, lost, revived, or new ones adopted, but big T traditions should not be lost because they define you as a people. I mention this because throughout the episode there is a bit of a confusion between the two. Just because little traditions, that might or might not have had their origin in pre-Christian behavior remain in a people doesn’t mean that Christianity is pagan, it means that Christians were once pagans. I’m not a pagan because I used to hold my breath in tunnels when I was a kid.

What does it Mean?

Finally, we get to my main issue. Theology, or the lack of.

What is Religion? The answer is that Religion is the answer to the question, “What is the nature of reality?” Not a scientific question of facts, atoms, molecules, gravity, planets, but the question of truth. What is the meaning of life? Who are we, what is our purpose? Where do we come from, where are we going, and what should we do in-between?

I listened to two hours of conversation, and these topics were either not addressed or brushed by in seconds. Instead, the talk was focused on denigrating Christianity. What is our purpose here on this planet? To venerate our ancestors? How do we go to the afterlife, and where do you get the knowledge and authority to make such a statement without the unbroken tradition? How can you speak authoritatively on the meaning of life, the meaning of the universe, when your own ancestors, who were closer to the source you use for knowledge of your faith, abandoned it as early as the 8th century, over a thousand years ago? Are you more holy than your grandfather, his father, his fathers father, going back many generations?

What is evil? Is there evil? What is morality? There are so many questions unanswered, and I’m honestly interested.

Organization

Another phrase, blood and soil, came up often. This comes out of that 20th century volkish strain of paganism. It’s feel like it’s kind of a weasel word, to use the modern German word for folk, when what is meant in the 21st century is White of European descent. Just say it. It’s ok. I personally support it.

The problem is that for a faith to become a religion, an actual religion it has to have people. You can’t talk about ancient gods, blood and soil, then be a dude living in America. If we are about blood and soil and ancient gods this soil is the soil of the pagan gods of America, not Germania East of the Rhine. This land was conquered from the Indians by Christians in the name of Christ. If the Germanic ancient gods came here they came as stowaways, hidden, unseen, far from the blood and soil which they have claim to.

Christ, King of Kings claims dominion over all the land, the heaven and the earth, and all of humanity, unto the ages of ages. That’s why Jews, Romans, Greeks, Gauls, Germanics, Dacians, Varangians, Rus, Japanese, Koreans, and many many others bowed their knees. He is the God of the Medieval Kings and the Alaskan Inuit, and all of us believers will have a seat in his kingdom.

Which begs the organizational question. How do you decide who is Germanic. How do you decide who belongs to your faith. If a stranger comes, is there a specific blood test that they must prove, lineage of some sort, birth certificates, tests. How do you decide when it comes to Americans who are rather mixed compared to Europeans. Would my wife who has Anglo Saxon grandparents, Irish Celtic grandparents, and Polish Grandparents be ok to join your faith? How about me, I’m absolutely not invited because I’m Dacian and Rus. Who decides.

End

In closing I will return to my first paragraph. The world we live in is broken; Christianity has an explanation why it is this way, one I find convincing, and more importantly Christianity has a way, through Christ, to redeem ourselves and repair the disease. What is your faiths answer to the problems of modernity? If it could not remain unbroken against the apologetics of semi-literate monks how can it withstand the technocratic power of the forces of modernity better than Christianity, which in my opinion is struggling, but will come out victorious?