No Further Revelation: Part II

This is a continuation of my previous post on this subject and is written largely in response to these two blog posts concerning the new edition of the Scriptures being published, called the Children of Déa edition:

By Independent Filianists for Independent Filianists.
The Children of Dea Version of the Clear Recital: Editorial Notes.

Filianism doesn't have to be - and is not - an orthodox faith that requires everyone to believe the same thing. While we do have a Creed -- though even it has differing interpretations! -- from the beginning we have never been expected to believe in the same fashion, largely because we did not have anything resembling an apostolic succession that informed the development of Christianity or the notion of heresies concerning the literal incarnation of God. There have always been a few that act as though they are the final say on anything, but by and large Deanism and Filianism coexisted without schism when disagreement arose as to the right course the faith should take:

Filianism and Déanism are two terms that were coined at much the same time … to differentiate between the thealogically developed religion of Filianism … and a simpler, largely non doctrinal worship of ‐ the Mother. Déanism and Filianism did not represent two denominations or groups of believers, so much as two possible sets of attitudes and practices within the worship of Our Mother God…

Déanism did not imply a dislike or rejection of doctrine or form. Its basis was simply a doubt as to whether the Filianic Scriptures, clearly of recent origin in their current form, could provide an authoritative basis for a specific religious form. It was not a revolt against doctrine and tradition, but a degree of doubt as to whether worshippers of Our Mother God could actually lay claim to them, and also a concern about people who were at that time … claiming themselves to be ecclesiastical authorities, when clearly an authentic line of priesthood of Our Mother God did not and could not exist…

It is important also to understand that Déanists and Filianists were not actually opposed in this matter. Authentic Filianists do not have a priesthood for precisely these reasons. Neither do they see the Threefold form of Dea as the only way of seeing Her, but simply one important and traditional way of understanding truths that ultimately transcend human understanding. Both positions are essentially humble. Grateful and happy for the fact that Dea has given us the simple means to love and worship Her. (‘What is Deanism?’) [pg 338-339 ECE]

There is a great deal of leeway in how we look at God the Mother, even going so far as to expressly permit people to revere a single Janya as God since the Janyati are ultimately Her:

Each of these Goddess Forms [the seven major Janyati] is Dea at the highest level. That is why we may rightly speak of a Goddess Religion.

An excellent modern example is the religion of Durga, in which Sai Vikhë is worshipped and recognised by many as the sole, supreme Deity.

Each Goddess-Aspect is, in Her ultimate Essence, Dea Herself, and may thus form the basis of a true Goddess Religion. (from: Goddess Religion)

Different members of the faith believe in reincarnation, while others believe in afterlives beyond this earth. There is not even a consensus as to what precisely occurred when the Daughter died. There is no reason to expect Filianism would follow the Catholic example in defining precisely what everyone should or should not believe.

obligatory photo to make this post appear properly on the blog

As written on the Apron Strings blog concerning the new edition of the Scriptures, the differing opinions on the text could have been well-placed as a commentary on the Scriptures. In a discussion on Facebook about my original post, we brought up the idea of having children's versions where the text is simplified, but I really like the idea of a commentary better. Functioning as a commentary, the reasoning behind changes remains clear: reworking the sections concerning Madrian households in a commentary to adapt to the modern day seems clear and useful, while preserving the original for later time periods. Beliefs such as terrestrial Janyati and the origin of the Dark Queen are well-placed as denomination-specific teachings that remain in a commentary on the original form, citing the sources and reasons for these beliefs while giving newcomers the chance to decide for themselves if this belief is something they see as reasonable and want to pursue themselves. As it is, changing the Scriptures themselves to suit a denomination is seen as problematic even in other religions: see Jehovah's Witnesses and similar that publish their own 'translations' of the Christian Bible.

A living document is one that, yes continues to be interpreted and adapted. The Jewish community continually makes their Scriptures available to the current day with the process of Midrash. But this is still done with an unchanged text. To adapt it continually to the day of the current practioners by actually changing the text ensures the death of a text's relevance. It seems to me to go against the point of having Scriptures to begin with: if the center of the faith is so unmoored that it must be continually rewritten as the ages pass, then there is no point in having them at all. There is no value in them if they can be changed at a whim. There is no encouragement to stay in community with others, all of us holding a wide range of beliefs based on the same text that we hold in common. While the concerns about a static holy text are valid, it would seem better to address those concerns by moving back toward a simpler Déanism that does not lay claim to the Scriptures and functions as any of the numerous religions that have existed and continue to exist on this planet that do not make use of holy text.

I also find concerning the view given on copyright and ownership surrounding the Children of Déa edition. Copyright on holy texts is not, as implied, there to prevent people from messing with the text, but because these are works that take teams of translators and publishers to bring those books into English; copyright is there largely to prevent people from putting them up word for word for free and thus deprive the translators of a living. The insinuation that our Scriptures should have been put up under copyright to prevent the Children of Déa edition from being written if we were really going to be that upset by its existence is disingenuous and unkind.

I am heartily sorry to see these developments, and wish they could have gone a better way. I can only sit back with my own misgivings, while sincerely hoping that nothing but good comes from them. I do not think I will continue to engage with this discussion past this post, having made my stance clear enough, and only encourage anyone else who comes to the discussion to do so with kindness.