Modern Heathenry is not one body and has no central authority, and the line that divides it most sharply is who may practise. The universalist position, held by the largest organisations in several countries, is that the gods call whom they call and that ancestry has nothing to do with whether a person can enter the religion. The folkish position holds that the tradition belongs with the descendants of the peoples who first kept it, and that practice and ancestry cannot be separated. At the far end of the folkish spectrum are explicitly racist groups, including some organised in prisons, whose use of Heathen symbols has attached a reputation to the whole movement that most Heathens spend considerable effort repudiating. The dispute is doctrinal and not merely political, because it turns on what the ancestors are and what a relationship with them is understood to require, and it has produced formal declarations, expulsions and rival organisations. Anyone reading about Heathenry meets the argument quickly. It is not settled.
Facts
Disputed
Point in DisputeWho may practise. The dispute is doctrinal and not merely political, because it turns on what the ancestors are and what a relationship with them is understood to require. At the far end of the folkish spectrum are explicitly racist groups whose use of Heathen symbols has attached a reputation to the whole movement that most Heathens spend considerable effort repudiating. 1 Status
Status Within the TraditionGenuinely disputed within this tradition 1 Doctrinal Category Current StatusThe dispute has produced formal declarations, expulsions and rival organisations, and anyone reading about Heathenry meets the argument quickly. It is not settled. 1 Belief
SubjectCommunity and its boundaries 1 Structure
StructureThe universalist position, held by the largest organisations in several countries, is that the gods call whom they call and that ancestry has nothing to do with whether a person can enter the religion. The folkish position holds that the tradition belongs with the descendants of the peoples who first kept it. 1 Learn More
Declaration 127 and the Line It Tried to Draw
The clearest formal marker of the divide is Declaration 127, issued in 2015 and named for the stanza of the Havamal its wording draws on, in which a coalition of Heathen organizations across several countries publicly rejected folkish and racial definitions of the religion and affirmed that ancestry is not a requirement for practice. Signatory organizations, including the Troth in the United States and groups in several European countries, framed the declaration explicitly against groups using Heathen symbols, particularly the valknut and certain runic imagery, as identifiers within prison gangs and other explicitly white nationalist organizing, and against folkish organizations the signatories judged had not sufficiently distinguished themselves from that usage.
Folkish organizations did not treat the declaration as settling anything, since from their position ancestry was never primarily about race in the sense the declaration was written to reject, but about lineage and cultural continuity, a distinction folkish writers maintain the universalist side collapses rather than fairly engages with. The practical effect has been organizational rather than doctrinal consensus, separate national and regional bodies now generally identifying as one side or the other, a formal statement of position becoming close to a membership expectation for the larger universalist organizations, and the underlying argument continuing exactly as before wherever the two positions meet.
Cross-Tradition Connections
Belongs to Tradition
Both positions are held within the movement. Recording the dispute is not an endorsement of either side of it.
Sources
Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.