
The oldÂer I get, the more I wonÂder who gets to decide what counts as faith.
It’s a quesÂtion that rarely gets asked directÂly. Instead, we inherÂit the answers.
One belief is called docÂtrine.
Another is called superÂstiÂtion.
One traÂdiÂtion is preÂserved.
Another is disÂmissed.
One voice is trustÂed.
Another is quiÂetÂly ignored.
But those labels often tell us as much about powÂer as they do about truth.
For most of Appalachian hisÂtoÂry, faith wasÂn’t someÂthing peoÂple encounÂtered only on Sunday mornÂings. It lived in kitchens and garÂdens, around sickbeds and supÂper tables. It accomÂpaÂnied births, deaths, droughts, harÂvests, and long winters.
It was woven into everyÂday life. And because life itself was rarely neat or preÂdictable, faith wasÂn’t always neat either. Mountain peoÂple learned to live with mysÂtery. They underÂstood that not every quesÂtion had an answer. Not every hardÂship had an explaÂnaÂtion. Not every expeÂriÂence fit comÂfortÂably inside a sermon.
For genÂerÂaÂtions, that wasÂn’t necÂesÂsarÂiÂly a problem.
“. . . when we look closeÂly, we often disÂcovÂer that the line between reliÂgion and superÂstiÂtion isn’t nearÂly as clear as we imagine.”
But as churchÂes became more estabÂlished and reliÂgious authorÂiÂty grew more cenÂtralÂized, the boundÂaries around acceptÂable belief often became narrower.
Certain expeÂriÂences were embraced. Others were viewed with suspicion.
The quesÂtion became less about whether someÂthing brought comÂfort, meanÂing, or conÂnecÂtion — and more about whether it fit withÂin approved definitions.
I don’t say that as criticism.
Institutions serve imporÂtant purÂposÂes. They preÂserve traÂdiÂtions. Provide strucÂture. Create comÂmuÂniÂty. Offer guidance.
But instiÂtuÂtions also tend to preÂfer clarÂiÂty. Definitions. Consistency.
And human expeÂriÂence is rarely that tidy — espeÂcialÂly in Appalachia. The peoÂple who setÂtled these mounÂtains lived close to uncertainty.
Weather could destroy a crop. Illness could take a loved one. A minÂing acciÂdent could change a famÂiÂly forever.
Life required resilience. Adaptability. And a willÂingÂness to hold things that didÂn’t always make perÂfect sense.
That way of livÂing shaped spirÂiÂtuÂal life as well. People learned to trust what susÂtained them. What helped them endure. What gave meanÂing to sufÂferÂing and hope durÂing hardship.
Yet over time, many of those ways of knowÂing became easÂiÂer to dismiss.
The lanÂguage changed. Practices once conÂsidÂered ordiÂnary became quesÂtionÂable. Beliefs that had existÂed comÂfortÂably alongÂside Christianity were increasÂingÂly pushed to the margins.
What fasÂciÂnatÂed me as I began studyÂing Appalachian hisÂtoÂry wasn’t simÂply what changed. It was who had the authorÂiÂty to decide that it needÂed changÂing. Because when we look closeÂly, we often disÂcovÂer that the line between reliÂgion and superÂstiÂtion isn’t nearÂly as clear as we imagine.
Many beliefs acceptÂed today would sound strange to someÂone outÂside the faith.
Prayer itself requires belief in realÂiÂties we canÂnot meaÂsure. So does the idea that grace transÂforms peoÂple. So does the belief that love surÂvives death.
Every faith traÂdiÂtion conÂtains mysÂterÂies. The difÂferÂence is that some mysÂterÂies become instiÂtuÂtionÂalÂized while othÂers remain local. Some are writÂten into docÂtrine. Others are passed quiÂetÂly from one genÂerÂaÂtion to the next.
One becomes offiÂcial. The othÂer becomes superstition.
Perhaps that’s why this subÂject interÂests me so much. Not because I’m tryÂing to decide which beliefs were right and which were wrong. But because I’m interÂestÂed in the peoÂple who carÂried them.
The women who held famÂiÂlies togethÂer through imposÂsiÂble cirÂcumÂstances. The elders who preÂserved stoÂries and wisÂdom. The comÂmuÂniÂties that found ways to endure hardÂship long before modÂern sysÂtems of supÂport existed.
“. . . faith, at its best, should make us more comÂpasÂsionÂate. More humÂble. More willÂing to acknowlÂedge that none of us posÂsessÂes the whole truth.”
Too often, conÂverÂsaÂtions about superÂstiÂtion focus on whether a pracÂtice can be proven. But perÂhaps there are equalÂly imporÂtant questions.
What need was it tryÂing to meet?
What fear was it tryÂing to soothe?
What grief was it tryÂing to carÂry?
What hope was it tryÂing to preserve?
Viewed through that lens, many Appalachian traÂdiÂtions reveal someÂthing deeply human.
A desire for conÂnecÂtion.
A longÂing for meanÂing.
A belief that the sacred remains present even when life feels uncertain.
And honÂestÂly, that longÂing doesÂn’t seem parÂticÂuÂlarÂly strange to me. It seems universal.
The more I study Appalachian spirÂiÂtuÂalÂiÂty, the less interÂestÂed I become in drawÂing hard lines between what belongs and what doesn’t. Instead, I find myself askÂing difÂferÂent questions.
What helped peoÂple surÂvive?
What helped them heal?
What helped them love one anothÂer?
What helped them endure?
Because faith, at its best, should make us more comÂpasÂsionÂate. More humÂble. More willÂing to acknowlÂedge that none of us posÂsessÂes the whole truth.
The mounÂtains have always underÂstood that. They remind us daiÂly that life is largÂer than our cerÂtainÂty. That mysÂtery still exists. That wisÂdom often surÂvives in unexÂpectÂed places.
And perÂhaps that’s what unsetÂtled instiÂtuÂtions most.
Not that mounÂtain peoÂple lacked faith. But that they someÂtimes found it in places authorÂiÂty didn’t fulÂly control.
For genÂerÂaÂtions, Appalachian faith surÂvived by adaptÂing. By blendÂing. By holdÂing onto what worked, even when it was whisÂpered instead of preached.
Never miss a thing with our FREE weekly newsletter.
What the church called superÂstiÂtion was often faith refusÂing to disÂapÂpear. It was peoÂple findÂing ways to carÂry meanÂing, hope, and conÂnecÂtion through cirÂcumÂstances that docÂtrine alone could not always address.
And now, someÂthing is shiftÂing again.
Across these hills — and far beyond them — peoÂple are rememÂberÂing. Not in exactÂly the same way their ancesÂtors did, but with the same instinct: to tend what is sacred, to heal what was broÂken, and to reclaim what was nevÂer meant to be lost.
Next week, we’ll turn toward the present moment — not to close this conÂverÂsaÂtion, but to open it wider. Because rememÂberÂing isn’t about going backward.
It’s about carÂryÂing forÂward the pieces that still know how to hold us.

