In Defense of a Clergy
by Brian Smith, in response to "A Rebuttal on the Concept of Clergy"

Clergy… are you for it, or are you against it? There has been a lot of talk on this issue; everybody has an opinion on the matter, and they aren’t afraid to give it you. Like so many other things in our community this is a bipolar issue… there really can’t have a middle of the road opinion. Either you are for something, or against it… the indecisive are usually ignored or bullied into taking a side. Most of the talk in the Northeastern United States has taken a decidedly “anti-clergy” stance. This isn’t a big surprise when you take into account that few Northeastern kindreds have ever had clergy, and the high degree of cross-fertilization between said groups. My kindred, while on good terms with these folks, grew up independent of them and has a different perspective on this issue. I would like to share with you our thoughts on the matter.

Before I begin, I think a point of reference is in order. Most kindreds in the Northeast have decided to model themselves after the Icelandic branch of our collective religious heritage. This carries with it many advantages, and a few disadvantages that really must be addressed if we are to understand the origins of their views. The advantages are pretty obvious upon first glance: most of our source material comes from Iceland. The problems begin to surface when we fail to take into account the context of these sources. Iceland was a rebel state in many ways. A few rich families moved there as a reaction to the increasingly hegemonic state of Norway. These people while preserving their religious culture were also eroding much of their ethical culture in the process. They turned their back on millennia of social custom, a custom of sacral kingship and priesthood. Some people with a “progressive” point of view may see this as a good thing; I won’t levy an opinion on it one way or another. I am only concerned about the facts here, and the fact is that Iceland was a deliberately crafted aberration.

In his essay, Mike Smith says: “The historical model utilized in Viking-Era Iceland did make the hereditary position of Goði a semi-spiritual leader/semi-chieftain/semi-lawyer.  And I most certainly agree with Lavrans that is an outdated, model that doesn't quite work.” And on this I am in complete agreement. The historical Icelandic model doesn’t work because it is not an organic part of the culture. While the head of the household was normally the person in charge of the familial aspects of religion, the community religious needs were performed by a specialist: a priest.  The earliest evidence we have, Tacitus’ Germania, states this time and time again. Medieval sources show us that while the members of the household usually attended to the cult of the Disr (Idesa), priests cared for the temples of the gods. My kindred would rather base itself on a tried and tested model that worked for millennia rather than an aberration that lasted less than one hundred and fifty years (heathen Iceland existed between 870 and 1000 C.E.). I know some of you are already saying “but the Icelanders were the last to fall to Christianity!”, which I must inform you is an incorrect, but commonly held belief.  The Swedes held out longer than anyone, and they had a strong history of sacral kings and priests.

Some have said that the desire of some for clergy is a “hang over from the conditioning of the traditions that come from Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.” with which I find exception with as well. It was clear that our ancestors had a priesthood. We have not only the primary and secondary sources to confirm this, but the linguistic evidence as well. Very few of us were born Heathen, and most came to this religion from the hated Abrahamic flocks. This antinomian reaction would naturally place people in a weary state of anything their previous religion contained: including clergy. But alas my friends, you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Many non-Abrahamic religions have a priesthood, surely all these folks haven’t been corrupted by the white Christ’s agents? To not do something because the Christians do it isn’t Heathen… it’s Satanism. I am not saying that heathens who refute priesthoods are Satanist, far from it… but I do wonder where their thinking is coming from?

Mr. Smith then goes on to say: “One could also argue that those who falter and leave the religion weren't meant for the Ásatrú religion in the first place.  They apparently are not "Loyal to the Gods".  (Ás- meaning "god(s)" and -trú meaning "loyal to")”.  So are we to believe that if a person “falters” or shows a sign of spiritual weakness they were never meant to be Heathen? This is another fallacy that often rears its ugly head: the idea that Heathenism is a “warrior religion” or a religion with a “warrior ethic”. At first glance of the source materials this would seem to be true, but it is simply not the case. Heathenism was no more a warrior religion than Christianity, perhaps even less so. Just because all the Icelanders chose to write about was “Egil killing this guy” or “Egil killing that guy” we can’t take these accounts as an accurate portrayal of early-medieval Scandinavian society, let alone Germanic society as a whole. Sure people fought, lots of people died, but many more planted seeds, reaped crops, and tended to animals. Unfortunately this misplaced machismo was deliberately cultivated in the early days of the heathen revival. One needs only to look in an old copy of Soldier of Fortune for the Viking Brotherhood adds placed by Stephen McNallen. This “warrior” ethic has permeated almost every aspect of modern Heathenism, and in many ways has marred the inherit beauty of it.

A person is a Heathen because the religion resonates with them, plain and simple. Whether this is due to an ethnic connection (as is Mr. Smith’s case), a moral connection, something that transcends reasoning, or all the above... they are still Heathen because they identify as such. Heathenism is just as much a religion for cowards, dullards, and persons of weak will as it is for heroes, scholars, and leaders. While we strive for the latter, the former are a real, and some may say necessary, part of any community.

So, what pray tell is a clergy good for?

I have been to a few blóts where there was no clergy, and while the folks throwing them were wonderful people, their rituals left much to be desired. A blessing is supposed to be an event the gods would like to attend… and if a person doesn’t find the performance fulfilling, why should a god? Clergy are not intermediaries between gods and men; they are the architects of what Rudolph Otto calls the “numinosum fascinorum” or “the fascinating aspect of the divine”. Our own Germanic languages have a word for this: Holy. This state is the precursor and facilitator of what Otto calls the “numinosum tremendum” or “the terrifying/awe inspiring power of the divine” which Modern English does not have a word for, but other Germanic languages do.  They do this through the proper, and sometimes elaborate, performance of ritual.

The idea that how you perform a blessing is less important than the intent behind it is an absurd notion when we look at the evidence. Ritual itself is a set of motions, actions, words, and emotions that are preformed in a subscribed pattern. Intent is important… but so is the actuation of said intent. Of course a people can probably do this on their own, and usually do… but some people cannot, or choose not to… and that means there is a real need for a specialist: the priest.

This specialization, like all things in our religion, is currently in a state of infancy. There are few folks out there that can easily facilitate the “numinosum fascinorum”, but it is a skill that must be harnessed and sharpened on a regular basis. There is a definite difference to the feel of a ritual when capable folks do it, and many of us are trying to develop these skills… even in the face of an often loud and influential opposition.

While the necessity of a clergy is a question that requires a definite answer, it like most things in our community is a matter that ultimately must be decided by the individual. I certainly hope people will look at my arguments before coming to a decision.