The Song and the Flame

The theme, I mean. I am super-tired of the old one. This one gives me sort-of an appropriate look and allows me to use widgets, so it wins for now. I’m never one to leave well enough alone with a theme, though; as soon as I have a chance to update graphics, it will be changing again.

…And I apologize for the bright-orange links.

At some point, I decided not to call myself Reconstructionist because I didn’t feel I met the scholarly criteria for it. I felt I gave myself more “wiggle room” than Reconstructionism seems to imply and didn’t read enough primary and secondary-scholarly sources to really say I based my practice on them. I’ve recently started to question that, though. This is largely because of a particular discussion in which I found myself defending a particular aspect of Reconstructionism with unexpected fervor, and in which I felt as though the incorrect labels being applied were being applied to me despite my not generally feeling as though I can claim to be Reconstructionist.

Naturally, the way to proceed here seems to be to do a little bit of research. Let’s start with defining Reconstructionism.

TC’s paraphrase of Campbell says that Reconstructionism “differs from other types of modern Paganism primarily on its reliance on solid academic and historical sources regarding deities, worship and symbolism”, and then goes on to give five major points of difference. All five of those points I very much agree with; the general statement does not run counter to my religious outlook so much as I’ve just got gaps to fill in. It is my ideal, though I struggle to reach it.

Hellenion’s mission statement contains a definition of Reconstructionism (in Hellenic context) which gets more specific as to time periods and such than I had (though all the sources I’ve been drawing on are likely to conform to it), and offers guidelines for updates to the religion with which I firmly agree. Again, I don’t see anything here I wouldn’t agree with; I do see things I have personally failed to achieve thus far.

Ruadhan says that “Religious reconstruction of any variety is a method; the method is based largely on book-learning, and applying what one has learned of pre-Christian polytheistic religions to their own religious practises.” …Which, again, is true of what I’m doing even if I haven’t done as much book-learning (as opposed to web-learning from people who have actually done the book-learning) as I’d like.

I begin to see a pattern.

The question now is, if the only thing stopping me being Recon is that I haven’t met that ideal… is that really enough to stop me using the label anyway? Do I forgo using the term “writer” just because I haven’t (quite) finished a novel yet and because I feel my writing is substandard? Do I drop the self-descriptor that I am an avid reader despite the fact that I’ve taken longer and longer to finish reading anything these past few years and have trouble with nonfiction sometimes? When I was Christian, did I quit calling myself that because I hadn’t read the Bible all the way through and couldn’t quote theology on demand?

Sure, there are things that I don’t claim to be despite having an interest in them because I feel like I’m just a raw novice beginner and can’t really properly call myself that. Photographer. Graphic designer. Novelist (as distinct from “writer”). But these are things that I am genuinely just beginning at. I’ve been on this religious path for several years now, and while I still have a long way to go, I think I also know more than I think I do — or at least I know where to look if I don’t have a specific answer. Is it perhaps time to stop letting my own insecurities dictate things for me, rather than an honest look at what I’m doing and what I believe?

I know where I’m going, and where I’m going is rather clearly toward Reconstructionism. Do I really have to be there already before I can say “this is what I am”? I think… perhaps the answer to that is “no”.

And I think it’s time to change my “religion” listing at TC.