One of the first questions that comes up when considering the effects of the folk process on religion seems to be "Is this valid?"

What I want to know is, "Valid as what?"

The 'as what' part always seems to get elided off these things, and that's the most important thing: one can't work out the value of something without a context. Pick a context, and then discuss it -- or, better yet, don't worry about the whole "valid" question in the first place.

First of all: the sorts of modifications that people tend to make to their religions for their own personal usage tend to be in ways that make those religions work better for them in whatever personal goals they have for religion or religious practice. This means that one of the fundamental definitions of "valid" -- "it works" -- is present pretty much by definition. If those changes didn't work for the people making them, they wouldn't be making them in the first place.

Now, some people will object to certain categories of changes. Perhaps they think that those changes are cutting corners due to laziness, or lack of dedication, or poor scholarship, or some other thing that invalidates the reason for making them. What this means, in the grand scheme of things, is that those people don't consider those changes valid ones, according to their standards. Unless those people are in the law-making business for that religion, their standards are just that -- their own.

Of course, any religion will have a set of things that one cannot modify too far without that religion becoming something else. This is one of the ways that religions speciate -- people modify their beliefs and practices, develop new ones, and eventually they come to be practicing a new religion. This means that the new religion is not valid as an example of the old religion. It's perfectly valid as itself, though.

The folk process is inevitable; there is no static religion. (A static religion rapidly gets abandoned when it becomes outmoded and stops meeting the needs of its people.) Any time someone has an insight into the preferences of a god in offerings, writes a new hymn, develops a new technique, they are initiating this sort of folk process. Some of these things will achieve wider status and get adopted within the larger religious community; some will remain personal quirks of their originator. Some of those changes are acceptable within the orthodoxy of the religion; they are deemed not modifications to the religion itself, but elaborations, embellishments, or the developments of richness. And the scope for what level of modification is acceptable varies within traditions -- consider, for example, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism.

When the question "Is this valid?" comes up, try coming back with "Valid as what?"

If it's not the way the ancients did it, it's not valid as a strict reconstruction. If it's not an initiation into a traditionally constituted coven, it's not valid as a British Traditional Wicca initiation. If it's not associated with the known lore about the god, it's not valid as historically-based practice. If it doesn't follow the strictures of a particular organisation, it's not valid as practices for that organisation.

That's fine. It doesn't have to be strict reconstruction, British Traditional Wicca, historically-based practice, or associated with the organisation unless that's what you're trying to do. It can be adaptation, some other sort of witchcraft, personal gnosis, independent -- these things happen.

Does it work? Does the result satisfy the practitioner and any co-religionists or co-ritualists? Does it satisfy the gods, spirits, ancestors, or any other entities involved? Does it work for the community? Does it promote the values that it is intended to support?

Is it rooted in truth? Are genuine experiences being sought? Are those things that come from specific sources and those things that are brought in by the individuals present clearly sorted out? Are facts about the world capable of overriding wishful thinking about how participants want the world to be?

Does it make sense? Are the premises consistent? Are the things that derive from those premises following in a natural way or are they forced? Are the reasonable results of having those premises and those practices considered? Are the practices coherent and meshing with the premises?

Is it healthy and robust? Does it give people needful tools for dealing with reality rather than leading them into a dreamworld? Will it survive contrary facts and opinions without collapsing like a house of cards? Does it have the capacity to handle complicated situations, even ones that haven't crossed the minds of the people involved at the moment?

Does it embody the right principles and concepts? Are these promoting of good relationships and sane people? Are the underlying ideas useful and considered true? (Note that this doesn't mean "socially acceptable"; I don't tend to think that "socially acceptable" is equivalent to "right principles" in all cases. Also note that I'm not specifying what the right principles and concepts are; I have to write an entire website to define my religion, I'm not going to do yours too.)

"Valid" is as "valid" does.