Tricky Religious History
The difficulties outlined by Lindow (2001, pp. 33–36) – including the late recording of sources, their Christian context, and the fact that much of the material is geographically limited (primarily Icelandic) – make it clear that reconstructing a precise and consistent picture of pre-Christian Scandinavian belief is not possible. Additionally, the sources tend to focus more on mythological narratives than on every day, lived religious practice, leaving significant gaps in our understanding of how individuals may have related to the gods on a personal level. These challenges create a difficulty in that there is no stable foundation to rely on for reconstructing practice in a precise way.
This has influenced my own approach, as I do not see value in trying to force certainty where the material itself is uncertain. At the same time, I still find it meaningful to engage with what little we do know about historical practices and beliefs. For me, this means that I cannot build my practice on claims of exact historical accuracy. Instead, I use the historical material as a form of grounding and orientation, while accepting that lived practice must also involve interpretation, personal experience, and a conscious acceptance of uncertainty. It is this combination of uncertain sources and lived experience that has led me to adopt this approach.
At times, this awareness of uncertainty can lead to doubt. It can raise questions about how one can be deeply devoted to something that is, historically speaking, so fragmentary and obscured. However, my personal experiences with Loki remain meaningful and real to me, and that experiential dimension carries its own form of validity. Rather than being undermined by uncertainty, my practice exists alongside it.
I also believe that the surviving sources, despite their limitations, still carry valuable insights. Even if filtered through later contexts, they may preserve traces of how the gods were understood and experienced. There appears to be something that persists beneath the layers – patterns, themes, and characteristics that can still be engaged with meaningfully.
Rather than attempting to map every experience onto specific mythological details, I find it more meaningful to evaluate whether something resonates with the broader patterns and characteristics associated with Loki in the sources. While some approaches seek to build detailed connections between individual mythological elements, I find it more useful to engage with recurring themes and underlying patterns. This allows for a practice that is both rooted and flexible, grounded in tradition while open to lived experience.
Sources
Lindow, J. (2001). Norse mythology: a guide to gods, heroes, rituals, and beliefs. Oxford: Oxford University Press.