Some Religions Will Survive The Internet

Valarie Tarico posted a commentary on religion and the internet back in January on Salon.com called “Religion May Not Survive the Internet.” You can read it at http://www.salon.com/2013/01/16/religion_may_not_survive_the_internet/ It is an interesting post, but I find myself having to disagree with much of it. Her primary flaw? She addresses religion as if the Abrahamic religions were the whole of religion. Going from there her entire article is based on assumptions about the Abrahamic religions and how free thinking will be the end of them. And while she does mention as one of the threats to religion as being “interfaith communities that focus on shared spiritual values,” she does not mention any of the many religions that do not share in the Abrahamic idea of “right belief” as being a threat.

The truth is there are many religions that do not have a ‘right belief.’ They are instead based on “right action.” This is the difference between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Orthodoxy is the practice of “right belief,” that is one has to believe in a certain way to expect salvation. An example of this is the idea one has to accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior in order to enter Heaven, that is one must believe in him. Orthopraxy, on the other hand, is the practice of “right action,” that is preforming the right actions will get you into Heaven or make you enlightened or whatever the “big payoff’ of that particular religion is. These actions can be ritual ones like prayer, meditative practices, or even something as simple as doing good deeds. Religions that are orthodox in nature tend to have very rigid belief systems, and are not open to new ideas. This is why you see Fundamentalist Christians refusing to accept scientific principles like evolution, or some Muslims still treating women like they did a thousand years ago when now much of the rest of the world has granted them equal rites. Orthoprax religions on the other hand because they are based in right actions and not right thinking or belief are much more open to new ideas, and may even embrace them. As long as the new ideas do not interfere with their performing the actions they need to do to achieve their goals there is no reason not to accept new scientific findings for example.

And this is where Tarico gets it wrong. She seems to assume all religions are orthodox in nature, or at least her article gives that impression. By equating religion with the Abrahamic religions she does not see that orthoprax religions may thrive because of the internet. As more and more folks reject the rigid thinking of orthodox religions, and begin to accept new ideas alien to the idea of “right belief” they may seek their spirituality elsewhere. And an alternative to orthodox religions are the orthoprax ones. Since “right action” does not interfere with the acceptance of new ideas, such religions are more likely to be accepted by those wishing to embrace new scientific ideas. And with the coming of the web in the 1990s orthoprax religions were given a platform from which they could compete with the big Abrahamic religions. With the internet, orthoprax religions can reach many they could not have reached before. No longer was one required to have large numbers of people to spread the word of one’s religion, to have large publishing companies churning out books on “right belief,’ or large buildings in which to gather to hear the tenants of one’s faith. Suddenly, a handful of people with a few websites could reach thousands of people. And as the web has changed and evolved there have been even more ways created that alternative religions can reach potential followers. And not only can orthoprax religions reach more potential followers, existing communities of followers and individual followers can interact in ways they have not before.

I do not have stats on the growth of religions like Germanic Heathenry since the inception of the internet, but just from personal experience I can say that it has been phenomenal. There are now many more Heathens than there were in 1994. In 1994, the Walburges ’94 gathering at Gaea Retreat attracted about 80 people including children. Now Lightning Across the Plains (LATP) which is held at the same site attracts close to 300 Heathens. I can only attribute this growth in numbers to the spread of information on Germanic Heathenry on the internet. There are more Heathens now than there were in 1994 I think largely because of the internet. I expect other such religions to have experienced similar growth. I think instead of killing religion, instead the internet is saving it by allowing disenchanted Christians, Muslims, and Jews to find other religions that do not interfere with the acceptance of new scientific principles and progressive ideas. Religion I think is here to stay. I do not see large numbers of people becoming atheists. I can see them however seeking out other spiritual paths more in keeping with their own ways of thinking.

Special on “Path to the Gods: Anglo-Saxon Paganism for Beginners” Ebook

For one week only the electronic edition of “Path to the Gods: Anglo-Saxon Paganism for Beginners” will be available for only $5.99. This is $4.00 off the regular price. You can get editions for Kindle, Nook, Apple products and many ebook reading apps such as Aldiko for Android. To get it at this price you must use the coupon code XW95C at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/286086

Hammer of the Gods Third Edition in the Works

Sometime this month I plan to start work on the third edition of Hammer of the Gods: Anglo-Saxon Paganism in Modern Times. I need to go through and correct factual errors especially with the sections on the wights and holy tides, and add material to the section on the gods and goddesses. In addition, I plan to do a total rewrite. The bulk of the book was not rewritten with the second edition. New material was added, and some material was removed, but there was no rewrite of the work as a whole. I have in the almost ten years since the book was first published matured as a writer. My grammar is much better, and I feel I explain things better than I did then. I also plan to add new material to the book here and there as many new academic findings have been made. If you have read the previous editions, you can help me. I want you to tell me what areas of the second edition you think needs help. If you find factual errors list them here in the comments. I am already aware of the many grammatical errors. My writing style has changed and evolved since then. What I do need some fact checking. I am already aware of many of the mistakes I made, but doubtless I cannot find all of them. Do not hold your punches. If you hated both the previous editions tell me why you hated the so I can make improvements. I want to make Hammer of the Gods: Anglo-Saxon Paganism in Modern Times on a par with my latest book Path to the Gods: Anglo-Saxon Paganism for Beginners if not better. I thank you for any help you may give me.

What You Call Symbel May Not Be Symbel

There is not one instance in the lore of symbel being held outside, not a one. It was always done in a hall. Paul Bauschatz in his work The Well and the Tree has this to say on the rite of symbel:

Clearly the symbel was some kind of solemn occasion at which the participants significantly sat down. Within the rather strenuously active contexts of most Germanic texts, sitting suggests inaction, rest, and order. Order seems especially important, because to sit requires a place to sit, and a place suggests some apportioning of positions, and the apportioning suggests Urth. The symbel is also a joint activity; one never reads of someone at symbel alone. Those participating come together and sit, usually within a chieftain’s hall. The contexts are not explicit with respect to the location, most simply stating that such and-such people were sumbli at; however, the locations that are specified are inside, for example in Heorot, Hrothgar’s Hall, in Beowulf. There are no contexts in which it is explicitly stated that the symbel took place outside. (Paul Bautschatz The Well and the Tree

Like Bauschatz I can find no instances in the lore of symbel having ever taken place outside. It always took place in a hall. Stephen Pollington brings this up as well in his work The Mead-Hall. The reason for symbel taking place inside instead of outside is because of the significance of contained space according to Paul Bauschatz. Bauschatz says it better than I can:

If significant action is space-defining and if significant action is past-oriented, it does not seem at all unlikely that the structure of significant space would shape itself formally like that of the past. The emphasis upon weallas ‘walls’, natural or man-made, would suggest the edge of a defined space with respect to which significant action may occur. Spatial walls derive directly from the image of the well and its functional closure of activity. Such walls, whether of vehicles, as in the ritual of Nerthus, or those deriving from the mountains surrounding the pagan temple at Uppsala, define sacred spaces of particular importance. With respect to men’s actions alone, the hall of the chieftain provides the significant space; the symbel occurs within the hall. Beowulf’s own first battle with Grendel occurs within Hrothgar’s mead-hall. The importance of manmade halls, because they figure as a kind of container inside which significant events may occur, is central to all Germanic literature.(Paul Bauschatz, The Well and the Tree).

Essentially, the walls of the hall (or with modern Heathens, their home) are symbolic of the walls of the Well of Wyrd, the well in which all actions of the past are recorded. Since the aim of symbel is to get in touch with one’s wyrd, and through boasts, toasts, and oaths attempt to determine its flow, it is essential that the rite take place in contained space, the contained space being symbolic of the Well of Wyrd its self. The more links one can establish with the Well of Wyrd the better (the horn too according to Bauschatz is symbolic as the Well of Wyrd as well). Being outside there are no walls and as such no link to the Well of Wyrd.

This contained space can be seen also as an enclosure or innangarðs. The scholar Kirsten Hastrup has this to say on the concept of innangarðs.

When we turn to the layout of immediate space, it appears that the most significant distinction pertaining to the spacial arrangement of the farmstead was inni:úti (“inside:outside”). The borderline between the farmstead as centre and the world outside as periphery was drawn along the fence that surrounded the farm. The opposition between innangarðs and útangarðs (“inside” and “outside fence” respectively) had important socio-legal implications. (Kirsten Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland)

She says further:

The important point is that in our period a structural and semantic opposition was operative between “inside” and “outside” the society-as-law, allowing for a merging of different kinds of beings in the conceptual “wild.” This anti-social space was inhabited by a whole range of spirits…landsvættir “spirits of the land,” huldufolk “hidden people,” jötnar “giants,” trölls “trolls,” and álfar “elves”…all of them belonged to the “wild” and it was partly against them that one had to defend ones-self… In this way the secure, well-known and personal innangards was symbolically separated from the dangerous unknown and nonhuman wild space outside the fence, útangards. (Kirsten Hastrup, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland )

So in addition to being symbolic of the Well of Wyrd, the structure in which one is holding symbel also serves as an enclosure, an innangarðs that serves to keep the “wilds” outside out. If done outside there may be many things spiritual and physical that may interfere with the rite of symbel. Done inside however, it is within the safety of a hall where much more can be controlled. An innangarðs is a realm of Man or the gods and is less likely to be meddled with by beings seeking to do harm or to interfere in the rite. These two reasons, the hall as symbolic of the Well of Wyrd, and the hall seen as an innangarðs are perhaps why symbel was always done inside in ancient times. Even if one does not accept Bauschatz’s theories on significant action in contained space, it is hard to deny Hastrup’s ideas on the enclosures of Man and the gods vs. that which is outside. Hastrup’s ideas would seem to be one basic to Heathenry.

So what if you are one of those groups that has always attempted to do the rite of “symbel” outside? Well, according to the reasons given here you were not performing symbel. For you to perform symbel you must be inside. Instead what you are performing is what Pollington refers to by the Old English word gebeorscipe which roughly translates as “drinking party.” Do not let the translation fool you. Gebeorscipe can be as every bit as serious as symbel in modern times. In fact, today it can take on the exact same form as symbel save it is being done outside. What makes gebeorscipe different if you accept Bauschatz’s ideas is that it does not require the enclosed space of symbel and as that is the case it does not accomplish the same things. Speech done in gebeorscipe is not significant speech. That is it is not speech that can alter one’s wyrd. There are exceptions to this such as swearing an oath on a sacred oath ring, but for the most part, speaking in gebeorscipe is no different than speaking at work, or in one’s home, at school, or any other non-ritual time. This is contrasted with symbel where every word you speak has significance as you are attempting to alter your wyrd, and have established a contained space with walls like that of the walls of the Well of Wyrd in which to do so. In symbel you boast of past great deeds in an effort to affect the outcomes of those deeds you plan to do and are vowing to do. In gebeorscipe while you may boast of past deeds and vow to do new ones, those past deeds will not necessarily affect the outcome of those deeds you are vowing to do. The reason quite simply is because you are not doing so in a contained space like the contained space of the Well of Wyrd.

That is not to say gebeorscipe does not serve a purpose. A Heathen community sitting around a fire swapping stories and tales, sharing drink together are getting things they may not even get out of symbel. They are bonding in such a way that is not easily done in other situations. There is something about sitting about a campfire making boasts and toasts and sharing with one’s family and friends that is not easily captured doing other things. Gebeorscipe serves a purpose nearly as important as symbel. But they are two different activities and serve different purposes. So if you have been performing “symbel” outside and truly do wish to do symbel, it is time to move it inside. On the other hand if togetherness and camaraderie are more important to you than altering your wyrd then by all means stay outside and do gebeorscipe. Myself, I would recommend doing both several times a year. There is much more that could be said on this, but I would suggest reading Paul Bauschatz’s The well and the Tree. Another good book concerning symbel is Pollington’s The Mead-Hall: Feasting in Anglo-Saxon England.

Bibiography
Bauchatz, Paul, The Well and the Tree: World and Time in Early Germanic Culture, University of Massachuetts Press; Amherst, 1982

Gronbech, Vilhelm, Culture of the Teutons, Oxford University Press; London, 1931

Hastrup, Kirsten, Culture and History in Medieval Iceland: An Anthropological Analysis of Structure and Change, Claredon Press; Oxford, 1985

Pollington, Stephen The Mead-Hall: The Feasting Tradition in Anglo-Saxon England Anglo-Saxon Books, Norfolk, 2003.

Sacral Kingship in Theodism Then and Now

The last two posts I have talked about the differences between Theodism as it was and as it is now. The first post was about my own personal experiences with the Winland Rice in the past and now White Marsh Theod in the present. The second post was about how Theodism was once full of conflicts, but now is fairly conflict and drama free. For this post I am going to address what is perhaps the most important difference, that of how sacral kingship is viewed. Perhaps nothing else has lead more to the diversification of Theodish practice amongst the theods than changes in how they view sacral kingship now more commonly referred to as sacral leadership. Now, I cannot speak for any other theod than my own and even then my word is not the official stand of my theod on the matter. All these words in this blog post are, are a reflection of my own observations. No one else may share these views with me, not even members of my own theod. Indeed, opinions may vary a great deal.

When I first became Theodish in the early ’90s it was as Garman called it “the king’s religion.” The emphasis was placed on sacral kingship. The idea was that an intermediary was needed between the gods and the tribe and that intermediary was the king and to a degree the king was the voice of the gods. In ancient times the king served as judge at assemblies, high priest, and military leader, and was seen as being of divine descent. In modern Theodism this translated to Garman having absolute control of his group the Winland Rice. He played the role of not only judge and high priest, but also ruler. His word was the last in the theod and none dared gainsay it. If they did they risked outlawry, and several were outlawed. Theods that followed in the Winland Rice’s wake followed this model to a lesser degree. In order to become an Æþeling of a theod one had to prove their descent from the kings of the tribe they were attempting to reconstruct who were thought to in turn be descended from various gods (Garman at his coronation recited his line back to Woden). When I first joined the Winland Rice the desire was to have a king, and so steps were taken to make Garman king or rather cyning as the word is in Old English. His cynehelmung or coronation was held in July of 1995. That seemed to be the desire of theods that followed. Their leaders were called Lord Æþeling “lord prince” and it was assumed when their theod decided that they would become king. This is as it was for many years in Theodism. For some theods it may still be so.

At some point though views began to change. Folks stopped talking of sacral kingship and started speaking of sacral leadership instead. The difference in the use of terms may not seem to be a lot to an outsider, but to a theodman it was a clear shift in emphasis. The goal need no longer be to set a king up as a leader of a theod. The current leaders of the theods were seen as care taking the sacral duties and were sufficient to do so. And they could do so until such a time as the theod was large enough to warrant a king. With this came the realization that the election of a king may be a long time in the future, and as such some theods ceased being obsessed with finding and crowning a king with the attitude of the time will come when the time comes. This allowed a shift in emphasis to happen in some of the theods. With some theods no longer concerned with crowning a king, the emphasis shifted from the sacral leader to the folk as a whole. While the leader was still essentially the theod’s intermediary between the gods and the theod, they were seen more as the voice of the theod to the gods instead of the voice of the gods to the theod. They represented the theod to the gods, not the gods to the theod (I still see a sacral leader as a go between, representing the folk to the gods and the gods to the folk but not all share this view). With this shift in emphasis it allowed folkmoots to form.

Folkmoots existed in early Theodism, but they did not hold much power. All the power rested in the hands of the Lord Æþeling or Cyning. On the rare occasion a folkmoot was called it was simply a case of getting the folk’s opinions, not a case of allowing them to make the decisions. Now though, in some theods, folkmoots are the final step in making important decisions. The sacral leader comes up with an idea and discusses it with his or her witan (a council of lords of the theod set to advise the sacral leader), once a proposition is formulated it is taken to the folkmoot which consists of every voting member of the theod. The folkmoot votes and whatever decision they make is the one the sacral leader follows. Now this is not how every theod works. This is not how White Marsh Theod operates day to day (we have had only one folkmoot in the time I have been a member, and have no sitting witan). For the vast majority of decisions the Alderman or lord of White Marsh Theod decides what the theod will or will not do. Generally though he only does so after getting the opinions of the membership. Thus as the folk are getting input as to the decisions being made, there is no need to call a formal folkmoot. This is still very different from the way the Winland Rice was run. In my time with the Winland Rice I never recall a folkmoot being called, and while the membership was sometimes consulted, a dissenting voice meant the risk of outlawry.

Sacral leadership has certainly changed and evolved over the years in Theodism. For some theods sacral leadership is not much different from what it was in the days of the Winland Rice. For others it is a very changed beast. Some of the changes in opinions about sacral leadership came about due to more research into how the ancient tribes actually operated and a better understanding of what the beliefs surrounding sacral leadership were. For some theods this merely solidified their beliefs in sacral leadership and the emphasis remained on the sacral leader, for others it meant a change in their views on sacral leadership and a shift in emphasis from the sacral leader to the folk, still other theods fell between these two extremes with a balance between the folk and the sacral leader being achieved. Regardless, there are now many varied interpretations of sacral kingship. It is no longer interpreted the same way for every theod as it once was. This is true of many Theodish core beliefs. While all theods may believe in the concept of tribal luck, they may not interpret it in the same way. Similarly, there will be differences in rites as well. Name a belief once central to Theodish Belief, and you are likely to find every theod interprets it differently. While Theodism was once a homogeneous whole, it now has a wide range of differences in practices. For the most part I think this is so, but since I am not as aware of how the other theods practice Theodism as I once was I may be totally off the mark. Leave it to say how folks view sacral leadership has changed.

A More Peaceful Theodism

From the late 1980s into the 2000s Theodism was a war zone. Beginning with the dispute between Moody Hill Theod and the Winland Rice and ending with squabbles between the Normanni Thiud and the other theods Theodism has known its share of disagreements. Today, while some Theodists will not speak with each other, it is a much more peaceful branch of Heathenry. The last few years there have been no major disputes between the theods. I cannot think of one big disagreement between theodsmen in the past four years.

There are many reasons for this. For one thing some Theodists either left Theodism or withdrew from the public light. For another theods began to respect other theods’ right to practice Heathenry as they see fit. At one time some of the theods wanted to dictate how all theods should practice in the mistaken idea that there could only be one form of Theodism. That is for a theod to be considered Theodish it must adhere to a certain outline, a certain structure. All oaths needed to be more or less the same, the same árungs (ranks) were to be used across the board, and the interpretation of the various beliefs important to Heathenry were to be the same. Any deviation from this and a group may not be considered Theodish by the other theods. This is why there is to this day the debate of whether or not the Angelseaxisce Ealdriht was Theodish. Though it was founded with the intent of being an improved form of Theodism its structure and interpretations of the core beliefs was such that many Theodsmen did not consider it Theodish. And for this reason many in the Ealdriht avoided use of them term Theodish further complicating the situation.

Now however theods have learned to respect each others’ right to form their own customs and traditions not to mention respect the fact that every theod will have its own interpretation of the lore and the core beliefs of Theodish Belief. There may even be differences within a theod as smaller units form their own customs. This all came about after the last attempt to formulate one form of Theodism came about in the mid-2000s. Most of the theods balked at the idea, and came to an agreement that each theod was the master of its own ideology. Ever since then every theod has respected the other theods’ right to practice as they please, and to a large extent theods have left each other alone. Sometimes beliefs may vary a great deal between theods. I can no more tell you the beliefs and practices of Axenthof Thiad than I could some sect of Hinduism. I could hazard a guess, but I could not tell you precisely what they do or do not do or believe.

Another reason there is less bickering is that Theodish leaders are aging. At one time, with the exceptions of Garman Lord and Ealdoræd Lord leading a theod was a young man’s game. My brother and I were perhaps the oldest outside of Garman and Ealdoræd being in our 30s. The level of maturity of the leadership of Theodish Belief was therefore not great. Its leadership was quite young, and in many ways immature and hot headed. The management and leadership of a group of people was something new to most of the young leadership, and the fact that most theods were feudal in nature with all decisions resting on a theod’s young lord matters were only made worse. Add to this the fact that Theodism often attracted very strong willed and sometimes pig headed people and problems were bound to arise. Those that were not strong willed and/or pig headed were often fickle, changing their minds with whatever shifting wind blew the strongest.

Now however nearly every Theodish leader is over the age of 40, and if not are at least in their late 30s. They now are much more mature. They are not as hot headed and are prone to think things out before acting. In the past one heated email between two theodsmen of different theods could lead to an all out flame war between theods. Today though such disagreements are dealt with with more grace, and will usually end in the two disagreeing theodsmen agreeing to disagree. Too, past disagreements have for many theodsmen humbled them. When I was younger and a leader of men I was arrogant with a much over inflated ego. Numerous conflicts though humbled me and made me rethink myself. I suspect other Theodish leaders have gone through the same experience. For me it meant being the only theodsman to go from being a lord to a thrall and basically starting over. While I do not know of anyone else that took such drastic measures I am sure others rethought their positions. The leadership of Theodism has matured and become wiser.

Finally many within Theodism grew tired of the constant bickering. They saw it accomplished little and indeed it was driving people away from Theodism. As a result they began to avoid conflicts. In some cases this meant theods withdrew within themselves. That is they ceased to interact with other theods. This has not changed for several years though I believe it is beginning to. Other groups while they may not have withdrawn have sought friendlier relations with those not of their theods. They have changed their approach to other theodsmen and even non-theodsmen. All of this has lead to the lack of conflict within Theodism Without the stress of ongoing conflicts they were able to think more clearly, and even more conflicts were avoided. Perhaps this came with age and maturity, but a lot of it can be owed to simply being tired of the conflicts.

The result of all of this is that Theodism is much more peaceful than at anytime in the past. There are theodsmen that will not speak to each other because of past conflicts, and not a few perhaps that hold certain other theodsmen in contempt, but to date this has not lead to further conflicts. Theodish Belief is now very much more drama free. It is to the point that we have folks becoming Theodish because they are tired of the drama in greater Heathenry, and want a drama free experience of Heathenry. Perhaps in time even those theodsmen that no longer speak to each other can mend fences. It is my hope that this grith will continue. It has been nice these last few years to see Theodism grow without the conflicts of the past driving people away.

The Ever Changing Face of Theodism

First off, let me state that the title of this post is a little misleading. It is not about how Theodism as a whole has changed. There have been changes for sure, but I am so out of touch with other Theodish groups that I cannot speak to Theodism as a whole. No, what this is about is how Theodism as I know it has changed. It is about how my experience of Theodism has changed. It therefore speaks about my experiences with Theodism, and how that has changed.

When I first became Theodish back in 1993 Theodish Belief belonged to two groups. They were Moody Hill Theod and Gering Theod. Gering Theod became the Winland Rice. The two groups had been at odds with each other for at least a couple of years. I never had any interaction with Moody Hill Theod and therefore cannot talk about their brand of Theodish Belief. I can only talk about my experiences with the Winland Rice. The Winland Rice at that time was very much concerned with the “king’s luck.” Garman Lord was Æþeling of Gering Theod and as such he was seen as holding the luck of the tribe. Therefore, any thing that was deemed to be a threat to that luck was dealt with harshly. It was almost as though the tribe’s luck was such a fragile thing that it had to be guarded at all costs. There was not much talk of how to generate luck. It was just assumed Garman would do this in his day to day going ons. This almost superstitious view of luck caused a number of problems including the outlawry of several people whom in my opinion had been allowed to remain with the theod could have contributed to the luck of the theod. But because at one point they had disagreed with the Lord Æþeling or criticized his opinions instead of being listened to and their advice taken they were outlawed.

Something else that was important to the Winland Rice at the time was the institution of thralldom. At that time thralldom was a very degrading process. Thralls were not respected, had no say in things, and when not being ignored were expected to do physical labor. They could not speak unless spoken to, and were generally insulted on a regular basis. A lot depended on who the owner of the thrall was. Some owners treated their thralls better than others. Another thing that was very important was the árung system or hierarchy. Each árung or position in the hierarchy had its place, and this place could not be strayed from. It was very much a top down system with the higher positions having more say and more rights, and final say going to the Lord Æþing who was advised by the Witan, a group of lords chosen by him to advise him. It was a very formal system too with those of higher station always being called “milord” or “milady” when being addressed. Theodism at that time was very structured and regimented. There were no folkmoots, nothing close to a republican or democratic form of government. Its system of governance was closest to medieval feudalism.

A lot has changed. As I said, I cannot speak for all the present theods, but at least with White Marsh Theod things are quite different. Luck is still an important part of White Marsh’s form of Theodish Belief. However, it is not seen as fragile. Merely disagreeing with the Alderman (as the lord of the theod is called) is not considered a threat to the luck of the tribe. Indeed, I have yet seen anything that has been thought a threat to the luck. Luck is seen as being something that if the Alderman is doing right action cannot be threatened. As long as the Alderman behaves honorably and the rites to the gods are done the luck of the tribe will be seen as good. Some things in regards to luck have remained the same. The lord of the theod still has to speed or see to the success of the members of the theod, but this is now seen as a much greater responsibility than it was in the Winland Rice. In the Winland Rice it was almost as though the Lord Æeling was seen as being owed, while in White Marsh it is as if the Alderman owes the members of the theod.

Thralldom if it can be called that is also handled much differently in White Marsh Theod than in the Winland Rice. Those that are joining the theod still have to go through a probationary system, but it is a much kinder system. The emphasis is on learning not doing physical labor. Novices can speak whenever they wish to so long as they are respecful, and are not insulted or abused. It is much more like joining the Masons than it is joining a college fraternity. White Marsh Theod still has an hierarchy. However, it rarely plays a role in the day to day operation of the theod. Rarely is anyone referred to as “milord” or “milady.” The hierarchy is so informal that I cannot even tell you what my title in the theod is. I only know the titles of two people, my brother Eric lord of Wednesbury Shire and my cousin Brian who is Alderman of the theod. White Marsh Theod is also much more democratic than the Winland Rice ever was. While this is rarely done in a formal way when there are very important decisions to be made a folkmoot is called and all members of the theod can speak their minds. This is much different from how the Winland Rice operated when only the Witan was generally listened to. Whereas the Winland Rice was very feudal White Marsh Theod is anything but. White Marsh Theod I would say is much more tribal than the Winland Rice.

There are many other differences between the Winland Rice and White Marsh Theod, but leave it to say Theodism in my experience has become a much kinder and gentler beast. I think Theodism as White Marsh Theod practices it would be a much more agreeable experience to the vast majority of people. In many ways it is not much different from other modern forms of Heathenry. Other groups are formally structured and have probationary memberships, and some even believe in the idea of tribal luck. While there is still much that White Marsh Theod’s type of Theodism does not hold in common with the rest of Heathenry I think folks would be surprised at what we do have in common. This could not have been said ten years ago. This is as much because of changes in the rest of Heathenry as changes in Theodism. Regardless, White Marsh Theod’s Theodism is not the Theodism of yesteryear.