The dichotomy of good and evil in heathenry

A few days ago, on the Asatru UK facebook group, someone took issue with the focus of the next great heathen gathering being the goddess Hel. They seemed very offended by this and accused the group of being "Rokkatru" for paying homage to the ruler of the underworld. Rokkatru are heathens whose primary focus are the beings associated with "darkness" or the underworld. Some of these might be considered antagonists in the story of Ragnarok. Such beings are Hel, Jormungandr, Fenris, Surt and the often maligned Loki.

The complainant seemed to be saying that, in heathenry there are "good" beings to worship and "bad" beings that should be shunned for some reason. This conveniently ignores the fact that many of the "good" gods are less than perfect. Thor certainly has anger management issues and has been known to break frith at a whim. Odin is very far from a good guy, betraying his followers and acting in a very rapey manner in more than one instance.

I think this desire to categorise characters and beings from the mythology as either "good" or "bad" is a hangover from christianity. In christian doctrine, everything is divided between "that which is of god" and "that which is not of god". Further, everything to do with god is good and everything that isn't to do with god is bad. To polarise this yet more there is no neutral or null position. If you aren't on god's side, worshipping god (in the correct manner) then you are "not of god" and thereby evil. There is little to distinguish a satanist from an atheist - they will both suffer in perdition.

Heathenry isn't like that. While there is a "battle" between gods and giants, it isn't as simple as polar opposite ideologies fighting for dominance. Many beings that we think of as gods and goddesses have Jotun parentage - Odin, Thor and Loki being notable examples. No-one would question anyone's right to worship Skadi, yet she is fully Jotun. So it is not as simple as the Aesir and Vanir being 100% good and Jotuns being 100% evil. Clearly these two cultures have interacted peacefully at times. Indeed, it seems that as Christianity took sway, Jotuns were demonised to better fit the church's narrative.

Similar demonisation may have occurred with Loki. Always a bone of contention with some heathens, a fact I'm sure that he appreciates, Loki is often viewed as "the heathen devil" or similar. He's a bad guy, surely? He fights on the "wrong side" at Ragnarok, so he must be a wrong'un. But Loki would never allow himself to be so easily labelled. Rather than "the heathen devil" or the rather reductionist term "trickster god", I think he works better as an antagonist or agent of change. It is difficult to grow or improve without some kind of challenge or hardship to overcome. Loki embodies that and more - he will shake up your life to force you to see the world in a different, more useful light.

Loki is blood-brother of Odin. Odin isn't anyone else's blood brother, so there must have been something particular that ol' One Eye saw in the son of Laufey that, at the very least, was useful to him. After all, without Loki, Odin would not have Sleipnir. In Loki's travels with Thor, we also see how useful his moral ambiguity and transgressive nature can be - Thor certainly wouldn't have Mjolnir without Loki's willingness to dress himself (and Thor) as member of the opposite sex.

There is no pure good and evil in heathenry. Everything is nuance and shades of grey. Just because Odin does it, doesn't make it good. Just because something comes from a Jotun, doesn't make it bad. This appreciation of the darkness in light and the lightness in dark is key to the full and proper appreciation of the heathen path.

Feeling like you're "doing heathen right"

When I was a kid and I hadn't really thought too much about the subject, if someone asked me what religion I was I would have answered, "Church of England". It didn't really occur to me to ask what that meant. All I knew was my curiosity had caused me to ask my mother what religion we were and that had been her answer. I lived in what was, I suppose, still ostensibly a christian nation back then. I attended a Church of England school and lessons that depended upon them included morality and culture that was influenced by the christian church. Looking back, there wasn't really anything that I did or thought that made me christian, much less Church of England specifically. As a family, we didn't pray or attend church on Sundays. The only time we saw the inside of St Mary's church in our village was for weddings and funerals - or if the local primary school decided to hold a harvest festival service there.

As I moved on to secondary school and mixed with an only slightly more diverse peer group, I came across friends who also called themselves christian. However, their families did attend church every Sunday. Some were even a different denomination - usually catholic or methodist. As I became aware of the impact that their religion had upon their lives it occurred to me that perhaps my family - and myself in particular - weren't very religious at all.

Later, I would go on to identify as atheist, nihilist, existentialist and a number of other similar labels. The point I'm gradually marshalling into place, though, is that to identify as anyone one or more of these labels was enough. Despite the fact there were other kids going to church, attending Sunday school and singing hymns much more enthusiastically than me, I was still more than justified in calling myself christian. Identifying as such was enough.

It's the same with heathenry. Identifying as heathen is the first and only necessary step in being part of this burgeoning community. There is nothing you can do, no book you can read that will make you more heathen than you are when you first start to realise that the spiritual path you've been reading about is precisely the one you've been on or the one for which you've been searching.

You can blot every day of the week and, while there are benefits to doing so, it doesn't really make you any more heathen than someone who has never blotted. The Archbishop of Canterbury could take part in a blot, and he would be very welcome to do so, but it wouldn't make him heathen.

Similarly, you could read a thousand books on the subject. Doing so would undoubtedly increase your knowledge of heathenry immensely. But it wouldn't make you any more heathen than if you'd spent the time watching Great British Bake Off instead.

There are as many different routes around the heathen spiritual landscape as there are heathens themselves. Once you've identified as heathen, how you actualise that is completely up to you. If you want to be the heathen who blots every day and reads every scrap of text you can find on the subject then do that. If you want to create artwork to honour the gods, wights, ancestors, landscape or even Travis Fimmel, then do that. If you just want to devote some time thinking about heathenry and discussing as much over drinks with friends (preferably around a campfire), then do that. Each of these is just as valid a means of "doing heathen" as any others that could be mentioned.

Heathenry online can sometimes come across as being very heavily weighted towards certain kinds of heathens. Academics, artists and craftspersons seem to account for 95% of heathen content. To my mind, though, that says more about the nature of the internet. If you have something to say, or show then webpages, galleries and video servers cater very well to you. Within heathenry, though, all kinds of people are needed. If you can lend an ear to a story, chat with a fellow heathen and add your voice to songs and laughter, then you are just as valid a part of the heathen history being made today.

Combatting Christian influence upon pagan children

While on holiday last week, my family were staying with my sister in law and her two kids (daughter and son). My daughter near idolises her two cousins. She loves it when they are around and likes nothing better than to play with them (just like I was with my cousins). Nothing could be more natural really.

We were taking a break at the flat where we were staying, resting before heading out again in the evening for a meal. My four year old daughter had a conversation with her cousins (who were at least around twice her age) that went something like this:

Cousin 2: "Freyja, do you believe in Jesus?"

Freyja: "Sheldon does..." (Sheldon is her tortoise hand puppet)

Cousin 2: "Do you believe in god?"

Freyja: "Sheldon does..."

Cousin 2: "But, do you believe in god, Freyja?"

Freyja: "No."

Cousin 2: "How can you not believe in god? He made you..."

Freyja: "I have a god book, that Daddy gave me..."



And there the conversation ended. The books she is referring to is D'Aulaires' Book Of Norse Myths - a book I bought her when she was born so I could read her some stories from Norse mythology and, hopefully, get her interested in Vikings and, by extension, heathenry. The book is really a little too old for her, being better suited for kids say 8 - 12 years in age - but the illustrations alone make it a valuable purchase.

I really am very proud of my daughter for being able to stand up against the (unintentionally) evangelical logic of a child twice her age. I am also touched that she seems to have taken the stories I have read her to heart and that she seems to use them as a reference source for the subject of gods.

I am concerned, though, that this kinda thing might happen again. If I witness a similar scene in future, I might feel the need to mention to my sister in law that I am not comfortable with her kids passing the christian perspective they learn from the faith school they attend onto my daughter.

In turn, though, I don't want to proselytise too much about heathenry in turn. Her kids being brought up christian really is no skin off my nose. Heathenry is really the kind thing that you need to seek out for yourself, if you feel it might be right for you.