![[Whirl]](images/mitsu.gif){kind=small}
To the Reeves Hall
The Frigga's Web Clergy Accreditation program proposal sparked quite a bit of discussion on the nature of Asatru and heathen clergy. The discussion centered in three essential questions:
How can modern Asatruers answer these questions? Very little specific information about our early priests or any other "religion workers" made it into writing. The natural course of development was cut off. We are living in a society dominated by followers of religions with quite different clergy traditions. All we can do is combine what clergy models we do have--from our own past, from the study of religions in general, and from contemporary models of clergy--with current Asatru culture and needs. What kind of gothi would be useful for our present needs and fit with our historic precedents?
I took a ramble through the literature and put together my thoughts on these questions.
There are a number of terms that people may use in ambiguous ways: priest, shaman, gothi, clergy, minister, pastor. In this essay I will try to use "priest" as a a generic description of a religion worker who presides over public worship activities, "gothi" for an Asatru priest, and "minister" to refer to some kinds of Christian priests. Be kind if I slip up.
Most societies and religions certain people who are considered to have special religious duties. There are many kinds of "religion workers". Typically, the duties of a priest include several different functions. The core list of priestly duties is very similar from culture to culture:
C. Von Furer-Haimendorf describes the two main kinds of priest-like religion workers. (Note that he uses the term "priest" to refer to one kind and "shaman" to refer to the other. His use of "shaman" is not strictly in line with the common use of that term in the modern pagan community.)
At most levels of civilization, priests act as the socially recognized mediators between men and supernatural beings. they are the experts in the performances of rituals, and in preliterate societies it is they who preserve, by oral tradition, the myths and the body of religious concepts and ideas which constitute a people's intellectual heritage. The functions, selection, and training and social position of priests differ widely even within simpler societies, and the designation "priest" has been applied to a large variety of religious practitioners, who may have little in common except for their alleged ability to establish contact with the gods and spirits, or to manipulate supernatural forces.
In some societies there is a distinction between priests, who are the official religious leaders and representatives of the community, and magicians, shamans, and prophets, whose power derives from individual supernatural experiences or what is presumed to be direct inspiration by deities or spirits. In practice, the functions of these two types of religious practitioners often overlap, and the distinction is not universal.
At the lowest level of economic development, there is little scope for the emergence of ritual experts of any other form of occupational specialization. Most societies of nomadic foot gatherers and hunters lack religious specialists comparable to the priests of more advanced peoples. All adults are considered capable of invoking gods or spirits and of soliciting their favor by way of prayers and offerings. Cult acts involving all the members of a group may be conducted by old men experienced in the performance of ritual, but no training or hereditary qualification is required for such activities, no do those engaging in the organization of religions rites enjoy any special privileges.
In most societies of some complexity, the task of establishing contact with transcendental powers tends to be vested in individuals who act as the representatives of the clan or village. Such individuals need not possess outstanding intellectual gifts, but the ability and the right to perform priestly functions may be hereditary in certain families, lineages, or clans. Another claim to priesthood derives from psychological states interpreted as possession or selection by a divinity or spirit, who is supposed to invest the priest with powers and knowledge not accessible to other men. Priests who base their position on hereditary rights and priests called to their vocation by the gods may coexist in the same society.
There is not a lot of surviving information on heathen priests. We do get some glimpses, however. It seems certain that both of the types described by Von Furer-Haimendorf--chieftain-priests and god-friends--coexisted in the world of our predecessors. There is essentially no information, however, on how early heathen priests were selected or organized.
Grimm surveyed the available lore more than a century ago and found slim pickings. And more recent experts have been unable to go much beyond Grimm.
We get the term "goði" from "godly" or "god-serving". The priestly function--to lead sacrifices, to guard and maintain shrines, sacred herds, and god-wagons, to supervise oaths and divination, and to judge the people--was connected with chieftains and nobles. And "if the occasion be not a public one, the paterfamilias himself can direct the matter and the priest need not be called in -- a remarkable limitation of the priestly power, and a sign how far the right of the freeman extended in strictly private life." [Grimm]
Sources agree that "In Germanic Europe...it seems there was no full-time professional priesthood, and the political leaders also had religious duties to perform." [Pennick] Germanic and Scandinavian priesthood was "never as efficiently organized as the Druids". [Davidson, 1988] Of course, "there may have been more individualism among the Germans, but it has to be borne in mind that most of our information comes from a late period, and that the organized priesthood could hardly have survived in strength in Iceland." [Davidson, 1988]
Davidson [1988] adds supervision of brewing and feasts to the list of priestly functions. She adds that there was basically no professional priest class or organization and little archaeological evidence for elaborate temples in pre-Christian Scandinavia. In addition, however, "There was a whole body of lore connected with the worlds of gods and giants, and it is interesting to speculate as to how it came to be built up. There is little evidence for an established priesthood of gods in Scandinavia, but there are references to wise men at the courts of kings who gave counsel, interpreted dreams, and foretold the future, and they may have contributed to the background of the myths."
Specifically, we have practically no information on continental German priesthood before the introduction of Christianity and very little more on the Anglo-Saxons. Owen says we must assume that there were people who carried out the essential priestly functions and who were distinguished from the general population in some way, but cannot say that we know this as a fact. Grimm cites Bede, who did say that a heathen priest of the Anglo-Saxons was forbidden to carry arms or to ride a male horse.
We know more about the Norse, although much of what we know has been heavily filtered through either the Roman or Icelandic world-views of Tacitus and Snorre. Let's surf quickly through the sources.
Here we read of "friends of the gods" who stood nearer to the gods by veneration and service. These people are told "many hidden things."
We also read of chiefly priests, whose custom it was "to direct the sacrifices and to judge between men." When Odin is described as an earthly chief, we learn that "it was his wont when he sent his man into battle or on any other journey to lay his hands on their heads and give them blessing; they then believed that all would go well with them."
This saga tells us of a chieftain-priest who served at the pleasure of his bonders. "He began by asking the bonders to give him the name of king and also to grant him support and help to maintain his kingdom." These bonders expected Hacon to sacrifice on their behalf (for good seasons and peace). When he showed reluctance, they told him, "Then we bonders have made up our minds to part from thee and take another king who can help us freely hold the faith that we wish."
(This saga also provides us with just about the only descriptions of how a sacrifice and mead-blessing were conducted.)
Grimm found it remarkable that Tacitus reported "any paterfamilias, jarl, or baron might perform sacrifice, priest or not."
According to Tacitus, capital punishment, imprisonment, even flogging are allowed to none but the priests. They were responsible for sacrifices, reading omens, and lot-casting. They kept the holy places and the sacred herds. Priests presided at things and weddings.
Tacitus mentions a specific cultic activity: the Nerthus island shrine and wagon procession. He also mentioned some tribal groves and that some priests "dressed like women", whatever that meant.
We know much more about religious and political structure of Iceland and this example of religious leadership is particularly relevant to us now. Their system was a later development of trends well-established on the continent, and in turn provided the basis of our own secular political systems. And modern Asatruers are in many ways more like the Icelanders than the continental heathens, since we also have a strong preference for a democratic, decentralized, egalitarian, individualistic, and pluralistic system.
Originally, a gothi was the chief of a group of families which shared a temple. "There was no full-time priesthood (if there ever had been), and the chieftain or landowner had the duty of upkeep of his temple." [Pennick]
These gothis had always had a great deal of secular authority. (Eventually, their responsibilities were almost completely secular.) Although in theory Iceland was a theocratic oligarchy, this was much altered by practice. There was not much social difference between prosperous farmers and gothis, and the association between a bondi and his gothi was a completely voluntary allegience. "The right to choose a leader, highly unusual in medieval times, was possible because thingmen of one chieftain could, and often did, live interspersed with the followers of another chieftain." [Byock] And gothis could be censured for bad behavior such as ignoring the terms of contractual agreements or aggressively imposing their will on others. Important decisions were made after discussion at the Thing, which was the predecessor of modern democratic assemblies.
These chieftain-priests never had a religious monopoly in Iceland. Public and private temples coexisted and a man was free to chose which god to worship. There was a continuing tradition of seership and family shrine-tending.
Thorsteinn compares the system to that of Norway: "Not a trace of this long ladder of social ranks can be found in Iceland...If we consider the well-to-do landowner as the basic unit of society, with his family and servants, then nothing of the previously-mentioned superstructure is over or above him. The only 'superior' to an Icelander was the Goði, who was: the man of advice or consult in practical and emotional matters, the man of Law and social contacts and of the elegant speech at Things, and the man of Faith. In reality, he became also a politician, and in critical cases, a ruler with weaponed power. ... The urge, in Iceland, for equal rights always has been a prominent desire with Icelanders up to the present time."
"Every free man could declare himself into the Thing of the goði he chose, with the latter's consent. This was a free agreement between individuals, the goði and the [client]" based on mutual confidence. The goði was to deal with outsiders and "reconcile his own clients mutually". He was expected to have a small number of clients and to maintain personal relationships with them. The goði was expected to maintain a temple and provide public religious observances for his clients. They were also expected to speak eloquently at Things and to take messages from the gods to man. [Thorsteinn]
This starts with the story of Hrolf, who was called Thorolf because he was recognized to be a "close friend of Thor." Thorolf had charge of a Thor temple in Norway. When Thorolf had to decide whether to make peace with the king or relocate to Iceland, he "held a great feast and asked the advice of his friend Thor about what he should do." When Thorolf was arrived in Iceland, he used the high-seat pillars from his old temple to divine where to locate his new temple. Thorolf established a temple and began to collect taxes from the local farmers, to support the temple and its priest. "It was the priest's business to see to the temple and to maintain it properly at his own expense, as well as hold sacrificial feasts."
(This saga provides us with our only description of the configuration and contents of a heathen temple.)
Grimm found it remarkable to learn from this saga that not all blotmen needed to be priests.
"A ring of a prescribed size should be placed on the altar in every main temple. The goði of that temple should carry that ring on his wrist to all regular Things, where he should conduct the procedures. Before that, he should wash the ring in the blood of a bull he had sacrified himself." [Thorsteinn]
Generally speaking, a society that has lots of full-time specialists tends to have clearly differentiated religious specialists as well. Further, our society now places a great deal of value on professionalism, with its implication of training, assured competence, accountability, and polish.
We each have a particular model of a Christian minister in our minds. He was trained in a seminary, ordained by the central authority of his denomination, and has a congregation of parishoners in his care. He is an essential mediator between his god and his flock. He has a great deal of authority over the spiritual lives of his congregants. His duties have come to include all the usual priestly functions, plus administration, social work and counseling, and public relations.
This model of clergy is the standard in our society. It is the assumption underlying all sorts of laws, regulations, and customs. It is an inescapable comparison for any ostensible clergyman.
Of course, the reality is not so simple. Most Protestant ministers are hired by the congregation's board, for example. And many ordained ministers do not serve congregations in this way at all. Roman Catholic priests are found in all sorts of jobs within the church, including teachers, researchers, social workers, administrators, and policiticians. And there are many ministers (in the United States, anyway) who were called to declare themselves ministers and found churches of their own.
When you put what we have in the lore and from history together with the strongly anti-authoritarian and decentralized bent of most of modern Asatru, particularly in the USA, I think you need to study a different model without the hierarchical baggage of the Church of Rome. Many of us find that the RSoF (Quaker) organizational model is a much better fit for most modern kindreds and associations than any other handy example.
In the RSoF, the source of all authority is the Light within each Friend. Decisions are made by consensus. They consider that ministers and others receive their calling from God--the fact is merely recorded by the local Monthly Meeting in their minutes after the other members recognize the calling. The MMs are organized loosely into Yearly Meetings, but membership is recorded at the MM level. There are YMs that differ widely in their beliefs and practices; some MMs and some YMs prefer professional clergy, for example. But they recognize the recorded members and ministers of all the other MMs.
From time to time, a MM may issue a "travelling letter" of introduction, that serves as a credential to certify that a particular member is representing the MM in some activity or endeavor that the meeting feels directed (by their Inner Light) to endorse.
Let's get back to the three questions we started with.
Gundarsson points out in modern Asatru the kindred is the fundamental organizational unit. And currently, the kindreds themselves decide who their gothis are and who meets their standards. Many people, I among them, believe that this local-based model of gothi-hood is far better supported by the lore than the Christian-influenced, central-authority, pastoral model. "Taking an active leadership role and being supported by the kindred" is precisely the basis proposed for the of the FW CAP.
Of course, some people prefer a more centralized solution, with more professionalism. Those people join kindreds that participate in one federation or other that support formal training and ordination.
Some people become gothis because they are called to lead and to serve the community.Some become gothis because they are god-friends like Thorolf Mostur-Beard whose close connection with a particular god is recognized by the community. Some go through a training program of some kind. Some just begin leading blots. What is essential seems to be recognition as a gothi by the people they serve. ("You are a gothi if you say you are and no one laughs.")
Each kindred sets its own standards. There is a lower limit in practice: most kindreds expect their gothis to be devoted to the Aesir and Vanir, to have some competence in the lore, and to have the ability to devise and lead ceremonies.
What role should gothis play? What do gothis do that make them gothis? Of course, the easy answer is "whatever their kindred wants them to do."
But what kinds of jobs make sense in our present situation? It is difficult to exclude any religious function at all based on the lore(except maybe sacred prostitution). Historically, the godhar were as much caterers and mayors as anything else. Throw in all the possible documented cultic, priestly, shamanic, statesman/mediator and skaldic functions, as well as all the modern counselling, missionary, and pastoral functions of a Christian minister (since many people now expect and want those services) and you get a very broad scope. And since we know that historic gothis often served as supervisors and delegated the actual conduct of many of the priestly functions to specialists, we have to conclude that it is perfectly reasonable to call someone who carries out any one or more of those functions a "gothi".
The modern Asatru community has several key traits that have a lot of influence any priest model we implement-- individualism, decentralization, pluralism, and a taste for deliberate archaisms. These traits have led us to the same place that deliberate study of historical precedent and relevant modern examples would have, to the conclusion that there is no single "correct" set of answers to these questions.
And so we just put in a lot of work to come up with a version of the standard Asatru answer to all such questions: Authenticity comes from de facto community recognition of a calling to some kind or other of religious leadership or service to the community.
Last Modified 21 July 1999
Comments to Manny Olds,
oldsma@pobox.com