What Would My Ancestor Do?
Christians are always asking themselves, “What would Jesus do?” though there is no real evidence they ever answer the question; perhaps because they don’t want to know. It would likely oppose what they’re so eager to do.
How often do I ask myself, in a similar vein, “What would my ancestors do?” It’s a question that is bound to come up among those who adhere more strongly to historical standards in the reconstruction and revival of ancient religions. We tend to be very ancestor oriented and traditional minded, even as those traditions are being reconstructed and reinterpreted in light of the passing of a thousand years or more.
Of course, I’m not a reconstructionist but a revivalist, if I must take a label. Heathen reconstructionists are no more able to reconstruct the past than Christian reconstructionists. The main reason is that it’s gone and past. Many centuries have passed and the world has changed.
That’s just my opinion and you’re welcome to challenge it. I know there are some pretty strict reconstructionists out there. But look at the context of the past for starters. The climate has changed – twice in some cases, perhaps more if you go back far enough. We’ve had a Little Ice Age and a global warming periods and now an upward trend in temperatures that make a solid case for anthropogenic global warming.
In that respect alone the world is different. Some ways of living will be more or less difficult as a result. Whales are on the decline and protected and my Norse ancestors loved to hunt whale.
The world has also gotten smaller. Communications and technology have changed everything. The three-tiered universe has been discounted. There may still be people who believe the gods are up and the dead below and we humans are in the middle. I suppose a case can be made in a metaphysical sense that there are other ways to look at this point, or maybe multi-dimensional physics could take care of it.
We mostly live in larger communities. We’re not isolated by geography and climate. There is no place we can’t go, no influence we can entirely avoid. Things just aren’t the same.
We can’t even raid monasteries anymore. But then, on the flip side, those Christian reconstructionists, though they might want to, can’t burn us at the stake or pour molten metal down our throats to make us convert either, so there are some trade-offs I can live with.
But my point in all this is to say that I can say, “What would my ancestors do?” in a given situation except that the situation in question would probably never have arisen in my ancestor’s world and he would be ill-equipped to deal with it now, were he here.
We have no idea how our ancestors would have coped with some of the changes of the past ten to twenty centuries. We can try to imagine but there is simply no telling, not with any degree of certainty.
That’s not to say we should just throw up our hands and surrender to a world culture. We have our gods and we have our beliefs and we treasure the wisdom passed down to us by our ancestors. Across the centuries, they have something to tell us, some important things.
Like honor and ancestry, like family and clan, like courage and moderation. Some of these things are timeless and will serve us as well as they served them. Our ancestors were a pragmatic lot, not given to violent swings of ideological or religious fervor. You might get outlawed like Hjalti Skeggjason, a proponent of Iceland’s conversion, for calling Freyja a bitch, but you wouldn’t get hounded into death and long-term persecution because you refused to abandon Christianity. The Norse ruled in Ireland and Norway and other places without forcing everyone to become Heathens like them.
Historical lessons like this tell us something about what our attitudes towards other religions should be. Respect and honor our gods and defend that honor, but do not impose your beliefs on others. There are other lessons we can learn, which give us some clue as to how our ancestors might respond today. For example, our Heathen ancestors practiced exposure of infants. It might be suggested from this that they would be pro-choice. It seems a reasonable assumption, since they themselves practiced what might be termed abortions after the fact.
But our ancestors also engaged in violent feuds and held entire families accountable for the actions of a single member. These are things most of us would likely not do today. In a small, isolated community such a practice might make sense. It kept social order by forcing clans to police its own. But in today’s world it makes no sense, and most governments discourage feuds. We have laws and courts for such things. So that would be an entirely wrong lesson to learn. My ancestor might draw his sword and kill the man who insulted him. I would not want to do that.
Sometimes you have to ignore the little ancestor on your shoulder. Sometimes you would do well to listen.
But that is largely why I am a revivalist. Our customs and traditions are important, but they must make sense in the context of the 21st century, not the first or the seventh or the ninth. Even the Amish, isolated as they make themselves, have to abide by the law, and those who oppose being bound by the Ten Commandments or Sharia Law would do well to avoid proposing the enforcement of old Pagan law codes.
So ask yourself what your ancestor would do, but keep in mind when he answers that this is the 21st century America (or wherever) and not 9th century Norway, and if somebody tries to tell you what Jesus would do, remind them that this is 21st century America and not first century Judaea, the Romans are not our overlords and that neither of you are Second Temple Jews.
Hrafnkell Haraldsson is the author of A Heathen’s Day, which since 2005 has addressed the life and thoughts of a modern day Heathen. He maintains a second blog, Digital Gods (www.digital-gods.com) which focuses on polytheism for the digital age. He is also the founder of the Mos Maiorum Foundation (www.mosmaiorum.org) which is dedicated to the study and support of Paganism as ethnic religion. 
I am always amazed by Christians who claim to know exactly what Jesus would have done in any given set of circumstances–as if they had a direct pipeline to his thoughts. Of course, what they’re really doing is holding a mirror up to themselves. Here’s a quotation from a well-known Seattle pastor:
“In Revelation, Jesus is a prize fighter with a tattoo down his leg, a sword in His hand and the commitment to make someone bleed. That is a guy I can worship. I cannot worship the hippie, halo Christ because I cannot worship a guy I can beat up.”
Uh-huh. And that tells a lot more about the pastor than it does about Jesus, IMO.
LOL Nice. Can’t worship a guy I can beat up. That’s the basis for this guy’s religion? Sad. As you say, it says much more about him than about Jesus.
Well-put, Hrafnkell! Through the changing times, isn’t it nice to have your good sense, passed down the family tree, to guide you, rather than only an unbending written tenet?
ps- My browser doesn’t seem to be cooperating, so I’m hoping this doesn’t post duplicates.
Thank you, and I absolutely agree, Chell. I think what we have is eminently superior to what they have. Having re-read my piece I feel I could have said things better but obviously you guys are picking up on what I was trying to say, and that’s the important thing.
Nice to see you back in business – hope all is smooth sailing with your recovery.
Thank you for posting this. That which does not evolve becomes nonviable, and that applies to belief systems like anything else, but that very idea can send some people screaming for heads to fall.
I have no problem with someone learning from antiquity and reviving the wise, practical, functional modes of the past. What I find frustrating is an attitude that wants to “reconstruct” a past using a narrowly defined set of standards, rules, and lifestyle, while insisting that “this is how it was, and is the only way to go, PERIOD”.
This ignores the fact that while there are some incredible literary and archaeological remnants that we’re very lucky to have, they only give us a peek at specific points in time and place. There are thousands of years of cultural development we have little knowledge of, and I don’t see how anyone could make any case for uniformity of practice over all of Europe for all that time. Even if Roman and Christian expansion had never happened, the beliefs of our ancestors would have evolved and morphed through invasions, wars, trade, exploration, and all the other things that make people mix. I see more value in working with what you have than trying to recreate what you might not have had anyway.
Thank you, Snoozepossum. I agree with regard to the narrow set of parameters used by some, and the tendency to be dogmatic about it seems all too common.
And as any study of first century Judaea will show, there are many possible pasts to reconstruct. Too, the dependence on scholarly materials means that when some new find reaches the news the reconstructionist must be faced with the possibility of revising what was before set in stone. I would rather personally seek inspiration but maintain some room to maneuver. I would even get into the issue of getting scholars to agree!
I found it interesting to read about your views on reconstructionist vs revivalist. I understand that very little lore exists concerning many Germanic Goddesses and certain Gods (Hermod for example) It does strike me as an uphill battle to try and reconstruct that which doesn’t exist. Imagine how different hockey might be if all we knew was that they used a puck and a pair of skates. In contrast, revivalist seems like a good term to quantify an effort to honor what we do know while at the same time implying that knowledge be integrated with 21 century values and norms. Does that make any sense?
The limitations of the lore is one of my big problems with a strick reconstructionist approach, obviously. Another is the passage of many centuries.
The tendency to view Hel as a goddess is an example of the former, given that scholars are undecided as to whether the goddess is a personification of a place and may never have been worshiped.
I like your example about hockey. And even if you figure out how hockey was played, you may still not understand its social and/or religious context – for example, the religious context of Rome’s gladiatorial shows is often overlooked today.
I believe Eir falls into the same category.
LOL I’m well aware of Hockey’s religious context:
Our father, who art in Centre Bell,
Hockey be thy name.
Thy will be done, the Cup be won
On ice, as well as in the stands.
Give us this day our hockey sticks
And forgive us our penalties
As we forgive those who cross-check against us.
Lead us not into elimination
But deliver us to victory.
In the name of the fans,
Lord Stanley and the holy Habs.
Amen.
LOL Martin. O Canada! I suppose Manchester United has some religious context too…Goodness knows I know a few Colts fans like that…