Swain Wodening’s Blog

There is no question about it Theodish Belief has changed. So much so that some longtime Theodsmen  have questioned whether Theodism can be defined at all. Some once Theodish groups have even ceased being Theodish or calling themselves Theodish altogether. New Anglia Theod became New Anglia Fellowship after it was decided that they had evolved away from Theodism. I would refer to them as Anglo-Saxon Asatru if that could be used as a term as they do not adhere to ancient tribal structure. Sahsisk Thiod ceased calling themselves Theodish and became Thea Marklosahson although from what I have seen they are still in principle and spirit Theodish. The very fact two major theods could undergo such changes, or abandon a term they have long used, shows that Theodism is undergoing drastic changes, not to mention a bit of an identity crisis.

One issue needs to be addressed though before going further. There is a certain amount of stigma for a group to call its self Theodish. Theodism was for so long under a single banner, and the practices of that banner so abhorred by some in the Germanic Heathen community, that folks still assume Theodism is that way. The early history of Theodish Belief is full of in fighting, witch hunts for anti-Theodsmen (the many attacks on Gamlinginn come to mind), and inauthentic practices such as the lack of democratic procedure. Along with these things one must add the more far fetched accusations of Theodish Belief’s detractors such being as non-egalitarian (which was true of the Wínland Ríce) and thrall abuse. Many would rather distance themselves from all this by not calling themselves Theodish at all or by changing the way they do things. One of the primary motivations behind the practices of Englatheod is to be more authentic than the Wínland Ríce was. By being more authentic it is hoped we can put some distance away from many of the accusations you hear about Theodish Belief made by its detractors. In truth, Englatheod is little different from the Angelseaxisce Ealdriht which used the term Theodish sparingly so as not to be criticized as the Wí,nland Ríce was.

While some groups such as Normannii Theod still adhere rather closely in my opinion to what I call “Garmanism” (Theodish Belief as envisioned by Garman Lord) others such as Miercinga Theod and Englatheod have went their own way. Axenthof Theod as far as I have seen seem to be on their own path as well. There are, I think therefore as many versions of Theodish Belief as there are theods, perhaps as Theodsmen. One can no longer sit down and outline what is Theodish, and what is not. While in my book Ã?éodisc Geléafa “The Belief of the Tribe:”: A Handbook on Germanic Heathenry and Theodish Belief I attempt to do just that, I tried to stick to very general guides that would nearly be true of any Germanic Heathen movement that was tribal and stuck on authenticity.

 It is true, Theodism is not monolithic. There is no one set criteria for being Theodish. Theodish Belief is based on the idea of tribalism as tribalism was seen by the ancient Germanic tribes. Each tribe saw their version of Heathenry differently, thus each Theodish group is going to be different. The Saxons had no king, so Thea Marklosahson will never have a king (as I said I still consider them in principle and spirit Theodish). The Angles had democratic assemblies, so Englatheod has democratic assemblies. Then you have differences brought about by each theod to fill in the gaps in ancient beliefs left by a lack of information. These are the little customs regarding everything from how arungs are handled to how blót is conducted. These differences can be so great that they can cause major disputes in the Theodish community. The last great rift I know of came about because of a dispute in how blót should be done, and the one prior to that over the rights of a folkmoot to remove its lord. In truth, there really is nothing an outsider could point at Theodish Belief and say it does that would be true of all theods other than perhaps, “they worship the Germanic Gods.”

It is the differences in the ancient tribal beliefs along with the modern adaptations by individual theods that has brought about the changes in Theodism. This along with schisms in the Theodish community its self due to personal conflicts, has created a Theodism that is much more like Asatru in that there are widely differing beliefs all under one heading. Theodish Belief of today is nothing like the Theodish Belief of 1994 in that way. In 1994 there was one major Theodish organization, the Wínland Ríce. All its beliefs and practices were determined by one man, Garman Lord who formulated the ideas behind Theodish Belief. Now there are several theods each determining their own destiny. Each has its own ideas on what Theodism is and is not. And each has its own way of doing things. The only single guiding principle in Theodish Belief is that one must be authentic to their particular ancient tribe’s way of doing things.

So what does this mean for Theodism? I feel it means there must be a reevaluation of exactly what Theodism is. That is where one could once exactly define what Theodism was and what Theodish Belief believed and practiced, they must now state things in more general terms. To go beyond saying that “Theodish Belief holds that one should be true to the beliefs and practices of their chosen ancient Germanic tribe,” is probably a mistake. It also means Theodish Belief can no longer be treated as a whole. The fact is, while the phrase is still sometimes used, there is no Theodish community (and I have used it in this post). There are many Theodish communities. For there to be a single Theodish community there would have to be extensive interaction amongst the theods at a leadership level. That is no longer the case. For the most part the current theods seem to keep mostly to themselves. That is not to say that Theodsmen of the various theods no longer interact. It is to say there is little to no interaction on any official level. Theodism has become much more like Asatu with several to many groups determining its future.

It also means many of the accusations made of Theodish Belief will no longer ring true to those that have personally had an experience with many of the theods. Ideas that thralls are abused, women are not considered equals, that theods are non-egalitarian no longer hold true of all theods, if those accusations ever did of any theod. Eventually, perhaps there will be no stigma attached to being Theodish, and folks that looked at becoming Theodish before and turned away will look again.

Theodish belief has definitely changed. It is difficult to say what the future of Theodish Belief may be. However, I think eventually folks will cease to see it as a cohesive single unit. They will realize it is not monolithic, and that each theod is different. This can only be for the best. If Theodish Belief is to be true to ancient Germanic Heathenry, it must be as diverse as ancient Germanic Heathenry. Theodish Belief will become, I feel, just another very generalized heading for a wide variety of Germanic Heathen belief systems that are tribal in nature.