Most of the religions of the world, especially the Abrahamic ones, are built upon the premise of historical validation. Historical “facts” have been committed to writing and the interpretation of these facts has been the basis for the growth and the subsequent direction of these religions. This committing to literature has also been the basis for establishing the authenticity of some religions, with the various holy books used to both record history and then suggest and / or confirm official interpretation of this material.
This generalised formula has also been the basis for a common definition of a religion. It has been the yardstick by which other religions have been judged. When I first started out exploring paganism in the mid 90′s, my own interpretation of what a religion should be were coloured by these common rules. I was looking for something from history which would provide me with a starting point. This historical fact would then both inform and guide me as I progressed. Or so I thought.
I was attracted to druidry quite early on. It spoke to me, with its roots and history being tied geographically and spiritually to Britain and Europe. However, its interpretations have been mainly informed by the interpretation of artifacts discovered by the archaeological community, a community that works through objectivity without applying much subjectivity because of the complex numerous variations subjectivity presents. So the results recorded were kept to such things as the identification of the areas where the artifacts were found and a suggestive generalised context was then suggested such as ” probably an item used in rituals”.
All well and good. But bloody infuriating for someone wanting to establish some form of historical validation with which to build their fledgling spirituality. Druidry seemed to me to be the “elephant in the room”, it was there, but no-one confirmed it through the traditional religious definitions. People spoke of their definition of what or how their druidry appeared to them, but no-one could point me in a direction that could give me the material I needed to build from, no historical validity, beyond the classical Roman accounts.
I began to drift away from druidry. If there was nothing out there to present me with the validity I required, it was time to engage with others and use a more rigorous and academic approach. I would look for what was out there with a different community and be guided by current thinking. I would attempt, along with others of a similar mindset, to try to use a more scientific approach to interpretation of pagan material. I would ground myself in the facts and then build from there.
This proved to be a very fruitful time, though this work ultimately had some consequences I could not have imagined. I still value a similar approach today. Unfortunately, the dynamics of any group are open to change and people’s enthusiasm, aspirations and directions are not exempt from change. Having established a base line, people drifted away. And this may be the nature of change.
I was prepared to work from this baseline and still do. The subjectivity of this baseline though, lacked the type of historical validation used by the other major religions because its interpretations were and are directed by a community who value objectivity above subjective speculation.
Subjective speculation was largely left to the individual or noted individuals. Hardly a large and established body of work with which to press for a pagan religion to be recognized using the accepted definition of a religion.
Yet this baseline was delivering results for me. Connection with the land continued apace. The connections continued to strengthen, almost daily.
Then I experienced a “little death”.
My marriage failed after 25 years (something now looking back is clear to spot, but like many others in a similar situation, was not at the time), I was dissatisfied with the job I had held for 14 years and my kids had grown and flown the nest. I moved out of the family home and proceeded to live in my touring caravan. I changed jobs and started with a company who had no track record in the line of work I have been employed in since leaving school. The foundations of my life up to then had disintegrated. The historical validation experienced by me that I used to guide the direction and purpose of my life up to then did not apply any more.
Therein lies the lesson for me. Historical validation when viewed in my lifetime is period specific. It is relevant at the time of its creation, but as we move through time, it’s relevance changes, just as everything changes. It cannot, for me, be a constant unchanging anchor by which to guide me throughout my life. A lesson which recently emerged in my thoughts as I considered the “rules” by which any religion is judged by.
Druidry, with its lack of historical validation, far from being hampered in meeting with the rules set by most of the other religions, is actually more relevant to me now because it lacks this credible historical validation (though I would not dismiss any significant findings in the future). To me, it demonstrates fluidity and dynamism that create relevance through interactions experienced in the “now” without anchoring the individual to a fixed point in history, as is the case in the majority of the other religions.
What some on the outside may consider as an inherent weakness, a point that I may have in some part agreed with in earlier times, Druidry to me is now far more relevent because it demonstrates that historically identified validation can actually create quite restrictive consequences. Its permanence is illusionary and can sometimes be responsible for restricting our own growth as it guides us back to an earlier time. And wherein I can appreciate that this time may hold valuable lessons, I now do not wish to be held hostage to it.