The Ism Trap
by Wilfred von Dauster, from Mountain Thunder, Issue 2, Autumn 1991.
Let's start a religion, you and I. We want it to be successful, insofar as it must provide us with a secure future, money, and power. Sound good? Let's go, and let's do it the easy way.
Step one: start with a set of rules. Rule number one, say, don't murder people. Sounds good. Rule number two, don't rob any banks; three, don't run over baby strollers. So far it sounds like common sense, right? Well, that's not good enough. So, let's come up with rule number four: Don't ever wipe your nose.
That last one is a bit strange, but we've put it there for a reason. To make this a religion, now, we need step two. State unequivocally that these rules come directly from God. In other words, they are laws. In step three we declare that not only do these laws come from God, but the only, real, biggest, all-everything God. Still with me? Good.
Step four is a bit more difficult. Suffer for your insistence that the Four Laws are inviolate, God's will. Become a fanatic for these rules and your belief. Your inflexibility will almost certainly get you fired from your job, divorced, etc. It is critical that you maintain your insistence on the truth of this "revelation" through these tribulations, for this is how we get our initial converts. Smile, or frown, a lot. So far it is OK, but there is still no money, power, or future security. What to do? Don't worry, we have the inevitable step five.
As the followers of the new religion are merrily going about their dedicated way, not murdering, robbing banks, running over baby strollers, or wiping their noses, something terrible happens. One of the flock walks out of a dark room into the bright sun, sneezes, then wipes his nose. Oh no!
Now wait, this is what we want. This is step six, the important one, the one that gets us all those nice things we wanted when we started this religion: a sin. Sins are great! Sins produce guilt. Being smart, we will capitalize on this guilt. We'll decree that it is OK to wipe your nose if you use a special, consecrated holy hankie. The nicer the hankie, of course, the happier God will be, in spite of your non-perfection.
Or, if one is a Christian, one can appropriate the suffering of some poor guy 2000 years ago, and it's OK. If one is a Moslem, one can grovel before the slave God five times a day and pray that he doesn't get too upset at one's transgressions.
Hopefully this whimsical example makes its point. Religions based on rules inevitably become religions based on laws. Pretty silly, eh? This is a backhand way of introducing the "ism" trap this article deals with: legalism. Why call legalism a trap? What are the dangers of legalism?
The first, and perhaps the greatest danger of rule-based religions is exclusivism. When a group defines a set of laws, then asserts that they are god-given, they historically, and I believe inevitably, believe that they have it figured out. It being life, the way to live, and God's will. Most significantly, it means they are therefore the only ones that have it right. Might they?
Think about it. Are you infinite? Does your present state of being allow you to know and comprehend all of everything? Are you, as a finite being, even capable of fully comprehending the infinite? Me neither. Ever met anybody who is? Me neither. It seems safe to go so far as to state that any human who does say he or she fully comprehends the infinite is a deluded crank. This argument is certainly not original, but has yet to be convincingly refuted. Therefore, anyone who says they have the answer as to the One Way the Ultimate works is simply mistaken. Therefore, if one feels drawn to relating to the Ultimate, any way is as valid as any other. Sound dangerous? It can be. But I believe it is still true.
The standard refutation is the revelation idea. God told us the way. Well, folks, people have been hearing from gods since there were people. Still nothing unique or exclusive. If one simply doesn't accept the legalistic basis of these religions, the rest becomes absurd. If one doesn't accept the laws that are the basis of the middle-eastern religions, including Christianity, then one can see clearly the absurdity, arrogance, and futility of these religions (and their histories).
The best one can do, I believe, is to find that system of beliefs which most closely corresponds to one's own values and attitudes. We are not the only right religion: We make no such conceited claim. We are also not a wrong religion: We allow no such conceited claim on the part of others. Asatru happens to embody the values which appeal to us. It offers the methods of relating to the ultimate reality which fit those who choose to follow its ways. I am one of those.
The second trap of legalism is strangulation. A set of laws, being finite, cannot fully describe ultimate reality, no matter how concise. Therefore, the tendency always exists for people with different experience and backgrounds to read different implications into, or out of, the laws. These are commonly referred to as different interpretations. As these finite laws are incomplete, by definition (reality is larger than any laws which seek to constrain it), there exists in all legalisms the tendency to add further refinements to the original laws, in the form of dogma, doctrine, or thousands of Talmudic pages of sublaws, rules upon rules, until it is simply impossible for a mortal human to abide by all of them. This is stifling, to say the least, and, if one buys the original example, probably what was in mind in the first place.
The third trap of legalism is fragmentation. Since we all interpret laws, indeed all human communication differently, legalistic religions inevitably fragment over usually very sincere, earnest disagreements over the real meaning of the laws. This is historically true in the most convenient local example, Christianity. How many denominations are there? Thousands. Most of these claim, deep in their doctrines (and often not so deep) to be the one correct interpretation of the laws at the bottom of that religion. The same splintering occurred in Islam and Judaism throughout history. The hyper-fragmentation and intolerance we see in the middle east today demonstrates the results of all of these traps. By the way, one can even argue that Marxism became legalistic immediately, then just as quickly split. I maintain that this tendency is not just an historical phenomenon, but is the inevitable consequence of a rule-based belief system.
A sub-trap (so to speak) of fragmentation is intolerance. Our ancestors were renowned for their tolerance of different religions. Indeed, this tolerance is one of the reasons Christianity was able to make its original inroads in Germanic culture. This doesn't mean we should now be intolerant: we should not shrink from defending our beliefs, but intolerance is something only one who has the answers can logically indulge in. We must even tolerate intolerance, although not necessarily remain silent about it.
We see this intolerance among fundamentalist Christians today. So called reconstructionists have the stated goal of "returning" the United States to its "Christian roots"1 (really? Jefferson would be interested). The primary difference between us and them is we must be willing to allow them their belief system, even if they aren't ready to allow us ours.
The fourth trap of legalism is hypocrisy. The legalist believes he or she is following their laws. As is clear (and intended), it is not humanly possible, or even desirable, to do so. The human thing to do is rationalize. The motto of the hypocrite is, "But that's different!" The problem, of course, is that it almost never is.
We'll discuss the fifth trap later. For those of us raised in the United States, or even present day Europe, it is very hard not to be legalistic. We are bombarded by legalistic blather from the day we are born. "We are a nation of laws!" Perhaps too many, but that is not the point. School rules, rules of order, rules of conduct, unspoken rules of political correctness. "There ought to be a law!" Ah ha. The language of Christianity bombards us daily. The implicit "you ought to ..." is everywhere. The Economist of London recently ran a lead story about the trend toward puritanism in the United States, "From there to intolerance." The article points out an unnerving trend in the US: "Increasingly, though, Americans are being permissive about themselves and puritanical about others. Worse, they are ever more ready the believe the answer to a problem is to pass a law."2
We who call ourselves pagans and declare ourselves free from such legalistic nonsense are not thereby automatically liberated from it. It takes attention, thought, and work. The rewards are worth it, though. Freedom from guilt is one of the ultimate joys of life.
"OK pagan breath, what are the alternatives to rules and laws?" Values, oh doubtful one. "Isn't that the same thing?" Not at all. A law is a prohibition against certain behavior, a statement of belief that begins by some variation of "You can't ...". A value is a positive statement of belief. An example serves best here. A law might state, "Thou shalt not lie." Examine the statement, Its very nature is unequivocal, no exceptions are allowed. Lie and you transgress. Penalties come later. A corresponding value, one which I believe in, might state, "It is best to tell the truth." Well, what's the difference?
Let's continue the example with a situation. Let's postulate that it is 1945, you are Dutch, and for the last four years have hidden a family of orphans from the Gestapo in your attic (specious or not, bear with me). There comes the knock on the door, when you open it the stereotypical fellow in the trenchcoat and fedora sneers, "Herr van Pagan, are you hiding people from us in this house? Yes or no!" You answer, presumably, "No. of course not! How dare you accuse me of disobeying the law! Begone!"
Well, there you've done it. If you belong to a legalistic religion, you've committed a sin. OK, you can rationalize that it was a lesser sin to prevent a greater, but it was still wrong to lie. Period. As a non-legalist I say, bull! To lie in this situation was the right thing to do. No little asterisk, no exceptions, no footnotes. It is best to tell the truth, but sometimes lies are necessary and right. This is situational ethics," someone cries out (perhaps Joseph Fletcher?). All ethics are situational: We just aren't hypocrites about it.
We can avoid the traps of legalism most easily by recognizing the importance of each individual. Our personal responsibility is to recognize the importance of our independence. Only this way can the true value, the full contribution of each member of a kindred be realized.
Well, now to the final trap of legalism as promised. That is the trap of racism. Do you believe in free will? In self-determination? I do. Did you determine your race? Me neither. I am proud of my heritage, but excluding anyone from participation in a tradition, a religion, solely on the basis of race is another rule. "You can't belong to our religion 'cause you're a (insert a minority name here)!"
More importantly, it is an arbitrary rule which contradicts the tradition of our ancestors. Were people excluded from our beliefs because they were, let's say, half-Celtic? Get real. What we like and follow is a culture and tradition. This culture is strong enough to overcome racial differences: It has always been. Remember, if we stereotype, we will be stereotyped in return. Martyrs are not a part of our tradition.
In summary, be watchful for creeping legalisms in Asatru. When we begin to define too much, we begin to exclude. When we codify, we eschew one of the most beneficial aspects of our religion. We are all warriors, fighting for our survival. True, most of us use different weapons than our ancestors, but our struggles are no less real. Legalism and its traps are baggage, excess baggage at that. What warrior goes into battle encumbered with unnecessary, non functional gear? Drop the baggage. Let us live free of religious rules and laws with their intellectual, emotional, ethical, and psychological traps!
Liberating, isn't it?
It's great to be a pagan!
Notes
See Porteous, Skip, "Waging the Battle," Free Inquiry, COSESH Inc., Summer 1991, p. 10, for an excellent example of this.
"From there to intolerance," The Economist, July 20th-26th, 1991, p. 15.
This article copyright 1991 by Wilfred von Dauster.
Web version copyright 1997 by Wilfred von Dauster and Mountain Thunder.
This page maintained by bratwurst@vinland.org
Last modified on 31 Mar 1997.