Neither Reconstructionism nor Revivalism
Reconstructionism?
Pagan* Reconstructionists are honest about the fact that their religion was destroyed by Christians and lies in ruins. Out of the rubble of the ruins they try to reconstruct their religion. Their devotion to their rubble is passionate. They despise the adulteration of their tradition by borrowing pieces from other traditions to fill in what is missing from their own. They are purists.
Where they fail is in thinking that they can actually reconstruct the whole of their religion using only the pieces of the rubble that remain. Their efforts beg the question of how a whole can be reconstructed when so many pieces are missing. Reconstructionism is like putting together a jigsaw puzzle that not only lacks dozens of pieces but also a picture of what the completed puzzle would look like with all of the pieces present and in place. Since we do not have a full picture of the traditions prior to their decimation, it is impossible to know when all of the pieces of rubble have been found and assembled.
Another question raised by Reconstructionism has to do with what Reconstructionists would have if they succeeded in their efforts. What if all of the pieces were gathered and correctly assembled? If they reconstructed their tradition, what would they have? They would have what their tradition was like hundreds of years ago, prior to it decimation. A tradition that was relevant hundreds of years ago and has not developed to be relevant today might make an interesting historical artifact but is worthless as a living tradition today. Practicing such a tradition leads to learning dead languages that no one speaks today, wearing clothes that were in style hundreds of years ago but not today, and engaging in other irrelevant kinds of behavior.
Revivalism?
Are other Pagan efforts more successful than Reconstructionism? There is a minor, fringe proposal from one Heathen blogger to replace the word “Reconstruction” with a word borrowed from the American Evangelical Christian tradition, “Revival”. Rather than reconstructing the ancient traditions this blogger, a former Evangelical Christian herself, proposes to revive them. Aside from all of the problems of using a word and concept borrowed from Evangelical Christianity, the notion of reviving a tradition that lies in ruins is incongruent with the reality of the problem. In order to revive something that something must exist as a whole. For example, to revive a person the whole person must exist. A person with missing limbs and vital organs cannot be revived. Likewise, a tradition that lies in ruins with many missing vital pieces cannot be revived. There is nothing to revive. There are only pieces of rubble.
An Alternative from Our Past: Renaissance
In my opinion, the way forward for modern Pagans is neither Reconstructionism nor Revivalism. The way forward I propose is based on our own European past. This way forward is one that cherishes the pieces of rubble that have survived of our Pagan traditions in spite of the efforts of Christians to erase them completely. It also takes these cherished pieces, sorts through them for what is relevant for today, and incorporates them into newly formed, living traditions of Neo-Paganism, Neo-Heathenism or whatever the adherents want to call them. The way forward creates new traditions that incorporate pieces of the old into new traditions that are relevant for people today.
I think that each separate tradition does well to use the pieces of rubble from its own past and resist borrowing from other traditions. However, I think that selective eclecticism is a wise thing. It fills in important missing pieces. When borrowing is done it should be from a compatible tradition and only when necessary in order to enrich one’s new tradition or provide something that is otherwise missing in one’s new tradition. Whatever is borrowed should be modified as much as is necessary so that it fits and does not look, sound or feel borrowed.
The masters of the Renaissance serve as a model of what I am suggesting. They took what they could learn of ancient Greece and Rome and incorporated it into a new style that was unique and relevant to their own time. Rather than a Reconstruction or Revival why don’t modern Pagans have a Renaissance?
*I use the word Pagan to refer to all of the non-Christian religious traditions of Western civilization.