'Eclectic'

[Theres]

again, this is a thread i started at another site, but i thought i'd post it here too, to get as many POV's as i can. it's something that's been on my mind for along time, so i'd appreciate your opinions.

okay, time to stir it up a little...
in my opinion, Wicca is being homogenized out of existence.
the term 'eclectic' has become the open ticket for doing damn near anything you want and calling it Wicca. eclectic has become just one step away from 'generic'.
well, i'm here to tell you that 'Wicca' is NOT an umbrella term for anything goes. the term Pagan may be that, and since there is no clearly defined definition of what Paganism is specifically (it is, after all, a VERY wide field), that may be okay.
but Wicca is a fairly well defined religion, although admittedly still evolving.
you see, the problem i have with all this is that many other Pagan paths have clear boundries which their followers adhere to. Asatru doesn't have nearly as fuzzy borders as Wicca. Voudon is fairly well defined too.
almost any other Pagan variation is considered inviolable.
but Wicca has become the ambiguous category that all the 'undecideds' call themselves.
so, i just wanted to say that this bothers me. it bothers me more since i first got online about eight months ago and started to realize that something i had studied and believed for a VERY long time had become this mushy non-entity which was justified through the term 'eclectic'.
i understand that this will open a topic of discussion that can go on forever. i'm sure there will be alot of rationalizations, and i'm interested in reading them.
but my feeling is that if you want to practice a blend of Wicca and Christianity, fine. but don't call it 'Wicca'.
and if you feel called to to the idea that all spirituality is the same, fine. but don't call it 'Wicca'.
it is my opinion that Wicca is NOT a 'smorgasbord spirituality'.
i find it a difficult concept to explain, but i'm bugged by it. so, i thought i'd let my online friends bandy the idea about a bit and see where it goes.

[Old Witch]

Is this a case of my Wicca is the only true wicca?

[Theres]

no, i don't think so.
i think it's more a case of 'everything i've ever read that i like' is not neccessarily Wicca.
i'm not trying to limit anyone's spirituality, or restrict their access to sources from ANY path. i think customizing your spirituality to your needs is fine. but is the result 'Wicca'?
perhaps, but also perhaps not.
my point was that the term Wicca has become a blanket expression that is often being used to classify paths which are not neccessarily Wiccan.

[talamh]

Very true, Greenman... and that bothered me for a long time as well. But i finally came to the conclusion that i know what i am and what i believe.... and i won't simply accept another person as being on a similar or compatible path as my own unless and until we have done some work and some talk together and learned to read each other's energies and meanings.

For some reason it helped me get a perspective on the word "eclectic" when i was reading a book by a leading Roman Catholic theologin who held that the story of Jesus quite possibly isn't literal or even historical.. but could be accepted as mythic, without changing the basic meaning of Christianity.

First i felt indignant, because somehow it seemed to me to be "cheating" for a Christian to pick and chose through basic and fundamental Christian doctrain and keep what seemed right and discard what didn't seem to fit them personally. That's why i left the Christian church when i was 17.. because i no longer could believe the basic doctrainal stuff i had said i believed at confirmation when i was 12.

But then i realized.... Christianity has evolved to the point where there is such a thing as "eclectic Christianity".... taking what fits and living with it. i ran the term past a couple of Christians i know.. and they seemed puzzled by the concept..... but it is the same process.. at least, it seems so to me.

So i have settled on accepting that when someone says they are an eclectic wiccan, that that really only means that they do not follow a particular "formal" or exclusive branch of the Craft... and whatever else it means.. it's up to me to figure it out.

As to Christianwiccans.... well... it doesn't work for me.... but if it works for someone else... that doesn't bother me at all. In fact, it helped take the vehemence from my mother's opposition to my spirituality when i showed her a copy of a Christian communion service done as a wiccan Circle. Go figure. But it helped her accept my spiritualitya little better... and that can only be a good thing. bb talamh

[Demeter]

I am unclear on the aspects of eclecticism you are complaining about, because you haven't defined your terms. What do you consider to be the "core" of Wicca? Is it the belief system? The ritual practice? Both? Where do a person's beliefs and practices leave the realm of Wicca and become "mushy eclecticism"? Once we have some definitions, we have a starting point for debate, rather than an ill-defined general complaint.

BTW, your complaint of its being "homogenized out of existence" is inconsistent with complaints of eclecticism. If it were truly homogenous, everyone would do everything the same way, and it would be noneclectic by definition.

[Myst]

Basically I think the same thing of Shamanism and other Pagan beliefs in general, although maybe not to the same degree as Wicca. Wicca does tend to be the "catch all". I see a lot of people who use it interchangeably with other names too (especially Witchcraft or Paganism) and that's annoying.

I agree with you talamh, and not just about Christianity, but Pagan beliefs too. It's hard to really explain it though because I already fully expect someone to come in here and start ranting about how they have the right to call their beliefs Wicca or whatever they want if they want and how no one can tell them what Wicca is or is not blah blah blah. Which is true, but sure you might have a different perspective of it and not consider them Wiccan even if they do. I know I called myself Wiccan without realizing I wasn't for awhile. I'm still always reevaluating what I think it is to be a Wiccan, Witch, Pagan, etc.

But I do see your point Greenman.

[Xander67]

In my opinion, when we waste time and energy LABELING things as Wican, or pagan or christian, we begin to seperate ourselves and put a wedge even deeper...

WHO CARES WICCA SCMICKA! wicca is a legitamate religion as is shaminism and judiasm and bhuddism....

only when we peel off the labels that have been blindly put on things, can we begin to understand what it is about,,, religion is based on culture and traditions and beliefs, the myths are written in the language that ppl will understand...

yes names are good, but I feel you should learn first, get the TRUTH and then apply it to you in a way that fits who you are

when we say, IM this or IM that, you miss out on perhaps learning and growing

[Twilight Garden]

I went through something where I finally realized that my "religion" is not actually Wiccan. That's why I usually just consider myself a sorceress. I do have some beliefs similar to those of Wicca. I even go to a Wiccan church occaisionally. I frequently attend a Unitarian Universalist church. When in a court battle I described myself as Wiccan because it is the closest "organized" religion to my own beliefs. In reality, and by most of the strictist standards, I am not Wiccan.

BUT... I know many "christians" who don't actually stick to all the commandments, don't believe in all the bible mythologies, don't go to church regularly; but still they call themselves Christian. It seems like picking on people to try to say "your not really this or that." People are going to call themselves whatever they feel closest to. Or what they feel is (as in my court case) acceptable. It is a bit of a waste of potential energy to worry about someone else's label of their own religion.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Myst
Which is true, but sure you might have a different perspective of it and not consider them Wiccan even if they do.

And if people could understand that line it would save me a lot of explaining.

Just because someone considers themself (or someone else) Wiccan (or Shaman, or anything else) doesn't mean *I* think you are. Therefore, if you go "I know Wiccans who blah blah blah blah" and I wouldn't call someone who "blah blah blah blah"'s Wiccan then we aren't going to agree, ever. Why? Because there's no reason I should try to force my beliefs on you, whether it's what Wicca is or what I call my path.

I agree, the term 'eclectic' especially in relation to Wicca can be overused, undervalued, etc. In general I consider Wicca to be a religion that follows the guidelines Jenett posted over at MM along with one more of mine.

* Acknowledgement of both male and female deities (even if one gender gets preference some or most of the time.)
* A fairly specific ritual structure for formal ritual (casting circle, etc.etc.etc)
* Lunar and solar cycle of celebration.
* Work with natural cycles and the wheel of the year.
* That it's an initiatory and mystery tradition (noting that initiation doesn't need to come from someone else, it can come from circumstances)
* it's *not* meant for a non-participatory audience, and that there's a lot of hard work involved in growth. You can't just turn up at Sabbats and expect to get the same things out of it as the people who are doing the hard work every day.
* adherence to the Wiccan Rede and Threefold Law

That along with any myth, pantheon, or other set of beliefs would be considered Wicca by me. But that's just my opinion.

[lucidfire]

So, you think the word is more important than the energy eh? Very interesting. No wonder we disagree so much. Well, I love you anyways Myst; it's the Rainbow spirit inside me, I can't help it :loveduv:


I think people are getting lost in the words. The point of words is to communicate, not dictate. I think the point of differentiating eclectic, from Dianic, to Green Witch, or whatever you call yourself (which is based more on you, than me, realistically), is similar to denominations. I try and respect all Witches, Wiccans, and spiritual faiths that are based on love and respect, and not on there being "one truth." I think that's the difference between knowledge and wisdom, is the ability to see from other perspectives without losing your own :D

[Twilight Garden]

Originally posted by lucidfire
So, you think the word is more important than the energy eh? Very interesting. In reality, it's not. In a court of law, it is. :p

[Theres]

i like your list Myst. i would add to it a belief in the concept of life, death AND rebirth.

and yes, this is just about labels and not fundamentals. i think i said that it's a matter of semantics.
but labels ARE used, especially in a forum like this. and improper labels can set into motion misunderstandings that are hard to clear up in a limited medium like the internet. we don't have inflection, tone, syntax, body language, any kind of vocal dynamic, or even emotion. so labels ARE important in a place where novices (especially younger novices) come to find advice on what they think THEIR path might be.

but ultimately, this is just a topic for discussion, and not some earth shattering new dogma meant to send people back to their caves to meditate in silence for a year and a day!
hey, i'm just an anarchist at heart. i could care less what i'm called, cause i'm pretty sure i know where my path lies. but i respect the old traditions, and would hate to see them 'eclecticised' out of existence after all the years that they've withstood all sorts of horrible oppression. that would be a sad irony indeed!

[amberlaine]

I would also add the belief of the immanence of the Divine to the list.

When it comes down to it, I've come to the point where I don't give a crap what lable other people want to use to define me. According to this list that Jenett has come up with, I fit the definition of Wicca, and I consider myself Wiccan. Yet, after talking to me about the deoth of my personal belief system, many people have said that I"m not Wiccan, becuase my theology goes beyond where Wicca is currently willing to go. (Aha, yes, I"ve been accused of not being Wiccan because I"m "too deep"--how's that for insulting an entire religion?)

What I've decided is that there is really only one person who can ultimately and definitely define what Wicca is and what it is not, and that man is Gerald Gardner. And guess what? He's dead. The rest of us arguing about what WIcca is and who is or isn't are all wasting their breath, because aside from the founder, no one's say is any heavier than anyone else's. So save your breath and argue about something that can be resolved. ;)

[Myst]

Originally posted by lucidfire
So, you think the word is more important than the energy eh? Very interesting.

Well that was baseless accusation wasn't it, being as I didn't say anything about the importance of the word, the importance of energy, their relation or lack thereof. I'm willing to guess the reason we don't get along is because you pull things "I've said" out from behind your ear like a child's party magician pulls coins.

Not that anyone's arguing, but I do agree, amberlaine. Gardner is the authority here and yet so many "eclectic" Wiccans probably don't even know who he is let alone have looked into his works. That alone should be some indication.

[airmist]

My compliments and thanks to everyone for some really serious and, for me, instructive discussion.

My spiritual experience and development as a pagan and solitary (a wiccan term?) has always led me to not use the term wiccan. I felt I didn't accept all of the aspects/beliefs/practices of Wiccan practice and therefore out of respect, shouldn't use the term about myself. Not that I rejected them, I simply didn't understand them all and, being solitary, just followed my own path, borrowing much from wiccans. Actually, using the list Myst posted, I believe and use all of those points except the Threefold law.

I tend to agree with the line of thought here that using terms more precisely rather than less is good for knowledge and learning. It doesn't need to be judgemental or exclusionary. And most pagans I've met work hard at not being either of those. Hope you all keep up this discussion. I'm learing from it.

[Armitage]

I'll have to agree that the term is being used may too loosely...I used to use the term 'eclectic Wiccan' because I felt it explained most simply what I believed. But I realized recently that this was kind of crappy to those who actually were and knew what they were, because I was making them look like the confused ones.

[Haedis]

I consider myself an "eclectic" wiccan, and I fit all the aforementioned points...but I dont feel really tied to anything. I mean I think there is enough room to experiment within the religion that I have alot of freedom to practice as I please. I do abide by the Rede, the Threefold Law, and I agree with the basic principles of the religion and practice and worship in the typical format...so I dont see how its really detrimental for the structure of Wicca if I dont strictly follow the Gardnerian Tradition. This branching off of sorts happens in most religions. I do completely agree that there are many people who dont realize what constitutes a Wiccan, and that "eclectisism" is becoming to broad of a sect, but this happens in other religions as well. I think there are considerably more Christians who just cling to the religion and to certain denominations who dont believe in it and dont apply it to their lives. I dont think this is just a Wiccan situation...and i dont really see it as a problem...it doesnt hurt me personally if there are people calling themselves Wiccans thinking that the Threefold Law has something to do with laundery. Lets not turn this into a witch-hunt here. (horrible pun, i know)

[Theres]

i myself am NOT a Gardnerian, nor am i willing to agree that his is the final word on what Wicca is.
after all, what he 'founded' in the early 50's was a conglomeration various of writings before him, from Leyland's "Aradia", through Crowley and Dion Fortune and who knows who else. so i do believe that as an 'organized'(?!) religion Wicca is still evolving. and we are a part of that evolution.
but even in natural evolution alligators don't evolve into hummingbirds, and i think maybe that is what bothers me about the 'anything that i believe in is Wicca' brand of eclecticism.
and i certainly wouldn't want a witch hunt to determine who gets to be in 'the club'. no 'Pagan Police' need apply.
i would just hope that by educated themselves a little further than SRW or Sabrina, people will be able to find their own paths a little more specifically, and not just tag themselves with the handiest (or trendiest!) Llewelyn label available.

[Pheonix]

I agree wholeheartedly that wicca does have definitions and boundris as to what qualifies on as. That is exactly why I askpeople to call me pagan and not wiccan. I follow a very similair path to wicca. But there are many things including blood magicect that do not fit the wiccan way. I call them pagan merely because it is easier to say that tosomebody then to tell them all my business.

However, I think wicca is evolving and changing constantly and to try to force restrictions on it hinders it's growth. I believe that wicca is a new religion whereas wicthcraft is not. So to say it must always stay one way is silly. Things do grow and change and "eclectic wicca" is allowing wicca to do so.

[lucidfire]

the way I see it, Wicca was always about the important of balance, and anybody who would choose a separation and say "I honor the Goddess" would obviously be recognizing her counterpart, but may just choose one side of it (similar to the denominations of other religions). I would say though, that if they ignore some of the very foundations of Wicca in the process, such as 'an it harm none' you couldn't necessarily say that. I guess it's an issue of what defines Wiccan then, to say whether or not something's being lost in the process; if so they shouldn't be called Wiccan. I don't see how anything like that can be stolen. Nothing can get inside you like that. It's not like we're talking about a piece of paper or something you can hold...

[Amethyst Rose]

I have A LOT to say on this subject, so bear with me. What I have to say is the result of 4 years worth of discussion between BTWs and Eclectics on this exact subject. My opinion is based on both sides of the argument. :)
First of all, most British Traditional Witches/Wiccans (BTW's) will say that Eclectic Wicca isn't real wicca, that to be of the Wicca you must be initiated into a tradition by a HP or HPs who can trace his/her initiatory roots back to Gardner. From this point of view, Eclectic is a horrible and nearly disgusting violation of the "true" Wicca. However, as an Eclectic wiccan myself, I only partly agree. I do feel that anyone who has not been initiated into a Trad (as stated above), can not call themselves simply Wiccan, or of the Wicca -- they are not. They CAN, however, call themselves ECLECTIC wicca, because their religion is, by definition, eclectic.
That being said, I do feel that it is a sad thing that Eclectic wicca is becoming more and more watered down with each new "fad" that is brought into it. Like this whole "White Light" thing. Now, no offense to those who consider themselves White Witches, or whatnot, but to me that its a dilution of the (eclectic) Wiccan beliefs. This does NOT mean that those beliefs are any less valid. An Eclectic is free to make their religion what they need it to be, and that's fine. Just dont' call it pure Wicca.

That being said (and because I can't remember what else I wanted to say), I do have some issues with two points of Myst's original list of what makes a Wiccan.



Originally posted by Myst



* That it's an initiatory and mystery tradition (noting that initiation doesn't need to come from someone else, it can come from circumstances)
* adherence to the Wiccan Rede and Threefold Law



To be of the Wicca, which is a mystery tradition, one MUST be initiated by an elder who can trace his/her roots. How else is one going to learn the mysteries of the tradition?? One can dedicated themselves to the craft and call themselves an Eclectic Wiccan, but one CAN NOT self initiate into a Trad, and be accepted as such. This is my opinion, and the opinion of many, if not all, BTWs.

The Wiccan Rede has a debatable history. There is argument that when the religion of Wicca was named (as in Gardnerian Wicca), the Rede did not exist....therefore, how can it be a part of Wicca? It is a part of Eclectic Wicca, certianly, and many, if not most, BTWs also adhere to it, but its not an original "rule".
That said, there is also an argument that says the rede was actually written hundreds of years ago.....but I'm not here to debate that one.....
Most BTW's as well as Eclectic Wiccans who have been practicing for a while, will tell you that the Rede is not a Law. It is a guideline of how to live your life, and your craft, morally. As for the threefold law.... it's not something you adhere to, it's something you believe. It is a lesson about consequences. Basically, it states that if you are not willing to accept the consequences of your actions, then don't do the action. -- If I am unwilling to have someone kick me three times as hard, then I shouldn't kick them.....if, however, I can deal with it, then I can go ahead.

Alrighty....I think I've babbled enough :)

[Myst]

My intention with using the word "adhere" was to suggest that one adheres to the ideas that the Rede and 3fold law present - ie. if you believe the Rede is advice, you adhere to the Rede that way, if you believe it's absolute rule, you adhere to it by practicing it as absolute rule. Same goes with the 3fold law - if you believe that you can never harm someone because it returns thrice, then you adhere to it that way, if you believe you can but face consequences, you still adhere to it in your way.

I guess I was too lazy to put "believe in and understand, and follow and recognize by whatever means you so choose, whether that be to take it as advice or counsel, or as absolute law". :)

Just wanted to be clear on that.

As far as "white" Wicca, well frankly my real problem in the term is that those who use it are adding to the belief of "black" and "white" witchcraft.

[Theres]

personally, i have never bought into that whole "if you can't trace your lineage back to Gardner then you're not Wiccan" idea. then who did Gerry trace his lineage to, Dorothy Clutterbuck? after violating his vows by revealing that which he swore not to reveal, can his connection to the 'White Forest Coven' still be valid?

so is Gerald Gardner the creator of a new religious philosophy or the leader of a religious cult? if it's the former then anyone who embraces his concepts of what is Wicca is Wiccan, no?
and if it's the latter then Wicca desolves into nothing more than some pre-hippie cult movement, with GG as its 'Guru'. and i can't believe that something so vital can be diminished that way.

as far as the Rede thing goes, i don't believe the theory that it can be traced back hundreds of years. i believe that claim came from those (like Gardner) who felt that this new Wicca thing would have more credibility if it had an ancient pedigree. and that is nonsense in my opinion.
but it doesn't really matter anyway. believe it as a law or not. it is a nice way to live your life, and i follow it as best as i can.
same with the 'three-fold law' (ie; 'karma'). one should not do or not do something because of the motivating idea that they will be 'rewarded' or 'punished'. the motivation should be that they think that their actions are 'right', in accordance with their beliefs. period.

i do believe that there is a difference between Wicca and what is called 'BTW', but i don't think that being a traditional witch gives one more of a right to say what is or is not the correct version.
i am Wiccan, with no qualifiers.
i was not initiated by someone who was initiated by someone who was..., but i could have been. i have practiced magick and ritual with a couple who were initiated by Buckland (they were even in his video), and even they don't believe that their path is any more valid than any other person who truly believes in their heart that they are Wiccan.

as i've said, being eclectic is fine. it allows you to see many options, and that can only be good.
i'm only a bit bothered by those who would make soup and call it bread.

[amberlaine]

i do believe that there is a difference between Wicca and what is called 'BTW', but i don't think that being a traditional witch gives one more of a right to say what is or is not the correct version.
I am Wiccan, no qualifiers.

Hallelujah!

[Amethyst Rose]

First of all..... Gardner did not publish the material that was oathbound in the White Forest Coven, he was NOT an oath breaker. He published all that he could, and added bits and pieces of other traditions in an effort to ensure that the old ways would not die.
Second....I did not say that you're not wiccan if you're not initiated by so and so. I said that to be a Traditional Wiccan, that is belonging to a tradition such as Gardnerian, Alexandrian or Georgian, you have to be initiated. One can be Wiccan without being initiated, they just don't belong to a Trad.... they are Eclectic. There are some BTW's however, that are nitpicky and say that no one how isn't initiated is wiccan....but I don't buy into that either.
Gardner, IMO, started a religion. The philosophy's already existed, as parts of other traditions which he molded together into one. He did not create a cult, because Wiccans do not blindly follow one leader of the religion.
I don't think that Gardner felt the religion needed something to give the religion credibility...in his mind it had credibility, and has its roots in ancient traditions. The argument about the rede being ancient has only surfaced in the last handful of years.
There is a differfence between British Traditional Wicca and other Wiccas (what I call Eclectic).... for one, the BTWs are oath bound, and none outside their Trads can learn that oath bound material (unless someone breaks the oath and publishes it, in which case its still not the same because you may have the knowledge but not the wisdom of an elder that would normall acompany it.)
I agree with you that no one has a right to say which is more valid, but unfortunately that happens. I also am Wiccan, but out of respect for those who have learned from elders and studied hard to become initiated, I call myself Eclectic.
The fact is that there are two different Wiccas, we can't measure an eclectic wiccan with a BTW yardstick... that wouldn't accomplish anything.

[Twilight Garden]

I was initiated first degree by the HP of a "real" Gardnerian church and two years into working on my second degree, when I realized: what I had been practicing and what I actually believed & wanted to be practicing were two different things. I then stopped calling myself 'Wiccan'. But when my religion was questioned in a court custody battle a year ago, I claimed Wiccan and asked for the help of my former church. They gladly assisted, and we won. (The HP is one of my dearest friends.) I know I am not Wiccan, only because I know so well what Wicca is. I think *some* of the people who claim to be Wiccan may not have a full understanding of what it is. Even though Wicca is young and still evolving, it is far more organized than some people (even calling themselves Wiccan) seem to give it credit for. But there is a lot of room for experimentation within it.

[Twilight Garden]

In sayin that I'm not trying to discredit anyone who is Wiccan and not Gardnerian or WHATEVER. I am just stating where I am coming from. I still believe that anyone who believes thay are something IS. If you believe you are this or that, then you are.

[amberlaine]

Using the term 'eclectic' assumes that one is borrowing ideas from various traditions. practices and religions. It implies that one is baiscally Wiccan with a lot of other belief system stuff throw in there. To me, that's a lot different than saying one is without tradition. When a Christian doesn't follow any particular denomination but calls themselves Christian, we don't call them "eclectic Christians"--they're just Christians, withut a specific type attached to them. Same for Wiccans. If some Wiccans practice the religion but aren't intitiated into a certain tradition or folow the strict guidelines as dictated by that religion that doesn't *necessarily* make them eclectic. It just makes them traditionless.

[Myst]

Interesting.

[Twilight Garden]

Originally posted by amberlaine
Using the term 'eclectic' assumes that one is borrowing ideas from various traditions. practices and religions. It implies that one is baiscally Wiccan with a lot of other belief system stuff throw in there. To me, that's a lot different than saying one is without tradition. When a Christian doesn't follow any particular denomination but calls themselves Christian, we don't call them "eclectic Christians"--they're just Christians, withut a specific type attached to them. Same for Wiccans. If some Wiccans practice the religion but aren't intitiated into a certain tradition or folow the strict guidelines as dictated by that religion that doesn't *necessarily* make them eclectic. It just makes them traditionless. Very well put. Excellent! I wish more people understood this.
(...though I'm still not Wiccan by most definitions. Not anymore. :rolleyes: :D Pagan is me.)

[Haedis]

IMO if all aspiring Wiccans were told that they needed to be initiated by someone who could trace the history of initiation back to Gardner, that would lead some to come to the conclusion that Gardner is in essence the Wiccan messiah...and some might honor HIM rather than the deities. I mean he should be honored as a teacher and founder of Wicca but his teachings should not be taken as gospel. Now I realize that many have more common sense than this, but I'm sure that all of you have seen someone who wanted to be a part of something who was so gullible they would follow ANYONE with blind faith. I think that this would be much more severe than Wicca becoming loosely structured.

[Myst]

Originally posted by Haedis
Now I realize that many have more common sense than this, but I'm sure that all of you have seen someone who wanted to be a part of something who was so gullible they would follow ANYONE with blind faith. I think that this would be much more severe than Wicca becoming loosely structured.

One or two people who have just begun their path and haven't been able to form their own beliefs and ideas vs hundreds or thousands of people who don't even know what Wicca is about (belief system, myth, basis, history, evolution, etc.)...

But I don't believe it has to be on those extremes. Maybe people should be encouraged to do some research into history and evolution of Wicca, as well as the sources of its beliefs. I know if told I should respect someone by that person just because of their age or trad I would probably tell them to f off. Maybe people who don't have chosen to learn the lesson of following false elders in this lifetime. Who can know.

I guess we can only do what we've always done - educate.

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by Greenman
personally, i have never bought into that whole "if you can't trace your lineage back to Gardner then you're not Wiccan" idea. then who did Gerry trace his lineage to, Dorothy Clutterbuck? after violating his vows by revealing that which he swore not to reveal, can his connection to the 'White Forest Coven' still be valid?
Wicca was founded on the teachings of him, Valiente, Crowley, and others. He doesn't nor do any of them need lineadge because there is no lineage before the founder or founders, in this case..


so is Gerald Gardner the creator of a new religious philosophy or the leader of a religious cult? if it's the former then anyone who embraces his concepts of what is Wicca is Wiccan, no?

Gerald is dead. Guess noone told you.

Anyone that embraces his concepts of what is Wicca knows that to be Gardnerian Wiccan you must be initaited as such. There can be minor disagreements about the actions of Wiccans, but not about what makes one one, imo.

Editied to add:

The beilef in Karma carries back to ancient India and Eastern Religon. Its is in no way shape or form an invention of Gardner.

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by amberlaine
Using the term 'eclectic' assumes that one is borrowing ideas from various traditions. practices and religions. It implies that one is baiscally Wiccan with a lot of other belief system stuff throw in there. To me, that's a lot different than saying one is without tradition. When a Christian doesn't follow any particular denomination but calls themselves Christian, we don't call them "eclectic Christians"--they're just Christians, withut a specific type attached to them. Same for Wiccans. If some Wiccans practice the religion but aren't intitiated into a certain tradition or folow the strict guidelines as dictated by that religion that doesn't *necessarily* make them eclectic. It just makes them traditionless.

I agree with almost everything. Except the part about Pagans without a tradition practicing Wicca, in reality. One of the things that makes a Wiccan a Wiccan acording to those traditions is initation ... so if one practices what they do yet has not been initated, they are not Wiccan, just Pagans that lean heavily on Wicca. IMO.

[amberlaine]

You're right, except that to be initiatied into Wicca as a religion, you do NOT need to be initiated into a specific tradition of WIcca. You can, but you don't have to be. Iniotiation is a requirement, I agree--just not into a certain denomination.

[mol]

Looks like another initiation vs. dedication fiasco.

Initiation is done at the hand of another person or by Deity. Dedication is done all by yourself.


And an aside: I just have to say that 'Wicca' is just a label. The word that is. If I say, "I am Wiccan." Then I am. If you or anyone else believes it untrue, oh well. It doesnt change the fact that I have delcared and accepted that "I am Wiccan." No one else can change that.

[amberlaine]

In the ORder than I belong to, we don't initiate folks into a certain branch of Wicca. Upon completion of one's study, students are allowed to request initiation. AFter the initiation is complete, they are Wiccan--just not adherants to any particular tradition.

When I was dedicated 7 or so years ago, I placed myself in a position of learning, seeking, and guidance. Dedication serves as a starting point for unearthing the mysteries in order to decide whether or not a certain path is right for you. Initiation is acceptance of the path that the Divine has laid out for us, and beginning along that path with confidence and determination. Dedication is the studying of the blueprints--initiation is to begin the building of the structure.

So I still stand by the idea that initiation is a requirement--after all, Wicca is an initiatory religion. Whether that initiation comes from another person or from Deity--*shrug* that's highly individual. But the acceptance of the path and the declaration that we intend to walk the path come Hell or high water--these are things we can't take lightly, and actions which powerfully attach us to the religion that called to us. If you aren't willing or able to make such a declaration and to bind yourself to the stipulations that come along with that, then I"d have to wonder why you thought this path was the right one in the first place.

[Avena]

Originally posted by amberlaine


So I still stand by the idea that initiation is a requirement--after all, Wicca is an initiatory religion.


Errr... What makes a religion an initiatory religion?
And are there any "non-initiatory religions" at all?
Just curious.


Originally posted by amberlaine

Whether that initiation comes from another person or from Deity--*shrug* that's highly individual.

But if the person doesn't worship nor believe in any deity, and if s/he doesn't know anybody who could initiate him/her, what is s/he to do?
And how important is the actual initiation ritual?
I also wonder, if there are any traditions of "re-initiation" = you want to leave Wicca behind and maybe follow another path again sometime after you have been initiated. So?

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by mol
Looks like another initiation vs. dedication fiasco.

Initiation is done at the hand of another person or by Deity. Dedication is done all by yourself.


Perhaps. That one sure was a mess. I was thinking something more along the lines of is iniation necessary to be wiccan. Or to be recognised as a wiccan. something like that.

Amber: I must admit that you are correct, and the idea of and eclectic Wiccan that was initated by someone with lineged to Garnder had not crossed my mind.

Mol (again): I must disagree with you that you can be initated by deity. Who will bind you to your oaths. Initated into What? I beileve that if you dedicate yourself, that then you can initate others into the path of your teaching. But thats prolly as far as i'll go on the topic. Prolly.

[amberlaine]

Some good questions.

What is an initiatory traidtion? Well, I can imagine this answer will vary from peson to person (big surprise) but I see an inititory tradition as any tradition that marks rites of passage throughout one's lifetime, and constantly acknowledges the cycles that we pass through, the evolution that we make, and the new beginnings that we subsequently embark upon. Rather than setting foot upon a path, walking that path and that being the end of it, an initiatory tradition recognizes that changes occur along that path, and new cycles of growth and transformation should be addressed and lauded. Wicca does this in a few different ways: the most common being the degree system, by which initiates are recognized as undergoinga certain period of challenge and/or transformation. Another is the cycle of MAiden/Mother/Crone and Young God/Sky Father/Dying God. Another, too, is the honoring of the chaning of the seasons, through which we begin again anew every year with new experiences unders our belts to aid us in our continued growth and evolution.

So are all religions initiatory? I wouldn't say so. Most Protestant denominations aren't, and not all pagan traditions are. I would say that both Catholicism and Judaism are initiatory to some extent, but I think in Wicca specifically, the cyles of initiation are pretty obvious.


But if the person doesn't worship nor believe in any deity
...then why are they claiming to be Wiccan in the first place? There is a lot of room for interpretion regarding divinity in Wicca, but you'd have one hell of a time convincing most of us that atheists can be Wiccans. Sorry.

[amberlaine]

I must disagree with you that you can be initated by deity

*grin* And I would submit that Deity can *probably* do whatever it wants to do ;)

I do have to disagree though, Kitty. In fact, I would submit that *only* Deity can perform initiation--priests and priestesses are merely facilitators. But allegiance to God is just that--allegiance to God, and the path that you are set upon is determined only by you and your Deity. IF you need the intercession of a HPS to feel worthy, again, that's up to you. But the HPS is merely a conduit through which Deity works. She can no more *make* you Wiccan than Howard the Duck can.

[mol]

Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod

Mol (again): I must disagree with you that you can be initated by deity. Who will bind you to your oaths. Initated into What? I beileve that if you dedicate yourself, that then you can initate others into the path of your teaching. But thats prolly as far as i'll go on the topic. Prolly.

Bah! I have NEVER...NEVERNEVERNEVER...been initiated by another human being. Of course, I am not Wiccan, but there are many other initiation based orders out there. Anyway, what I am trying to say is this. I was intiated into my Path by a being known to me as Ankoat.

I will let you take the matter up with Ankoat and you can tell Him/Her/It that I was, indeed, not initiated.

[Avena]

Well, somebody not worshipping and/or believing in a deity doesn't have to be an atheist in the first place...

But maybe a "Wiccan atheist" would just interpret the whole moon goddess & sun god thing symbolically.
Instead of worshipping these deities in form of ... yes, in form of deities
:rolleyes: he would celebrate the miracle of birth, growing and dying throughout the seasons and Wiccan holidays, without seeing the force of a (or more than one) god behind it.
Isn't that possible?
However I've to admit that I have never heard of a Wiccan atheist ...

[amberlaine]

Avena:

I must be misunderstanding you, so would you mind explaining a few things for me?

When you say, "don't believe in a deity", what do you mean, if you don't mean atheist? Do you mean not believing in any divine force at all, or do you mean not necessarily accepting certain visions/interpretations/manifestations of deity (such as not working with personified deities, etc)? I would argue that anyone who does not believe in the Divine at all is definitely not Wiccan, but i would submit that each individual's interpretation of that Divine may be *quite* different. Woudl you mind clarifying this for me?

[Avena]

Alright, IMO ...

... a person who doesn't believe in a deity doesn't necessarily have to be an atheist because there ARE religions that exclude the idea of the devine. An example: Buddhism. REAL Buddhists don't believe in the existence of a god like force. There are some that worship Buddha like a god, but in buddhist tradition he is actually just the "founder" of Buddhism. And I wouldn't call a Buddhist Atheist ...
But yeah, a person not believing in a deity at all CAN be an atheist as well. But not all "non-believers" are such.

... a person that does believe in the existence of deity/deities no matter what kind of visions/interpretations/manifestations he might believe in, is definitely no atheist.

... there are some who believe in the existence of the devine, but aren't interested in "contacting" this force. Like " *It* is there, I believe in *its* presence but I don't feel the need to worship or honor *it* ".

(I'm not sure if this answered your questions, but feel free to ask again!)

Who of these three different persons couldn't become Wiccan, and why?

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by mol


Bah! I have NEVER...NEVERNEVERNEVER...been initiated by another human being. Of course, I am not Wiccan, but there are many other initiation based orders out there. Anyway, what I am trying to say is this. I was intiated into my Path by a being known to me as Ankoat.

I will let you take the matter up with Ankoat and you can tell Him/Her/It that I was, indeed, not initiated.

I would call that dedication.

Hey, you where right.

[amberlaine]

... a person who doesn't believe in a deity doesn't necessarily have to be an atheist because there ARE religions that exclude the idea of the devine

...uh, so what?

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what an atheist is.

From dictionary.com:

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

If you don't believe in God at all, you're an atheist.

And with regards to Buddhism, you are talking specifically abotu THerevada Buddhism. THere are other kinds of Buddhism, and not all Buddhists are atheists. Not even all "real" Buddhists.

So I'm not sure how to address the rest of yoru question. Either you're an atheist, or you're not. THere's really not a lot of gray area on this issue. And why cna't you be Wiccan if you're atheist? THats's pretty obvious: its a fundamental concept in Wicca that Deity exists. Fundamental. If you absolutely don't beleive that, you're barking up the wrong religious tree.

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by amberlaine


*grin* And I would submit that Deity can *probably* do whatever it wants to do ;)

I do have to disagree though, Kitty. In fact, I would submit that *only* Deity can perform initiation--priests and priestesses are merely facilitators. But allegiance to God is just that--allegiance to God, and the path that you are set upon is determined only by you and your Deity. IF you need the intercession of a HPS to feel worthy, again, that's up to you. But the HPS is merely a conduit through which Deity works. She can no more *make* you Wiccan than Howard the Duck can.

But what are you really being initated into? The religion. You could not give two about the God and Goddess and get yourself declared a dedicant. Dedicated to what? The religions teachings. Perhaps not all of them.

The thing i would say that only deity could do is to inspire worship ... and who knows why Deity only does that to some?

[Avena]

Originally posted by amberlaine


...uh, so what?

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know what an atheist is.

From dictionary.com:

atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.



Obviously I really didn't know the exact meaning of "atheist", if the explanation on dictionary.com is the only correct. What it most certainly is.

Alright, maybe you can also explain me the following, so I get the meaning of the word "atheist" once and for all right ;) : if you don't believe in the existence of god or gods, but in the existence of ... say fairies, or ghosts, these are no gods, but some kind of not provable forces as well. So, can somebody who denies the existence of god, but believes in the existence of fairies for instance, be an atheist?

[/B][/QUOTE]
If you don't believe in God at all, you're an atheist.
[/B][/QUOTE]

So, is a Bhuddist, not believing in any god, an atheist, although he belongs to Buddhism?

[/B][/QUOTE]
And with regards to Buddhism, you are talking specifically abotu THerevada Buddhism. THere are other kinds of Buddhism, and not all Buddhists are atheists. Not even all "real" Buddhists.
[/B][/QUOTE]

Is there a kind of buddhism involving the worship of gods? :confused:


My, my, I'm learning and learning and learning today

(I know, my quoting doesn't work, but I don't have the time to get it right)

[amberlaine]

You could not give two about the God and Goddess and get yourself declared a dedicant.

Ok I have no idea what you're talking about.

[amberlaine]

Alright, maybe you can also explain me the following, so I get the meaning of the word "atheist" once and for all right : if you don't believe in the existence of god or gods, but in the existence of ... say fairies, or ghosts, these are no gods, but some kind of not provable forces as well. So, can somebody who denies the existence of god, but believes in the existence of fairies for instance, be an atheist?

Yes. Look, it's really not that complicated. The word atheist has the prefix a meaning "not" or "against" and the root word "theo" having to do with "God". Therefore, atheism is the denial of God. It's got nothing to do with faeries, ghosts, or anything else. It has to do *solely* with one's belief in God. That's it.

So, to answer your next question, a Buddhist who denies the existence of God is an atheist. Yes. Again, atheism doesn't necessarily have to do with one's personal philosophy. There are certain religions, like Therevada Buddhism, that do not hold the belief in Deity as a fundamental tenet of the faith. In those instances (which are few) one can be a member of that religion and still be an atheist.

Are there other kinds of Buddhism that incorporate communion with the Divine? YEs, there are.

[Myst]

Originally posted by amberlaine
then why are they claiming to be Wiccan in the first place?

That's what it tends to come down to for me.


Originally posted by amberlaine
There is a lot of room for interpretion regarding divinity in Wicca, but you'd have one hell of a time convincing most of us that atheists can be Wiccans. Sorry.

I'm in the "most of us" group.

[mol]

Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod


I would call that dedication.

Hey, you where right.

I will call it initiation, because that is what it was...

[Myst]

I think in a large part the problem is due to irresponsible authors and people with IRAB ("I Read a Book") syndrome.

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by amberlaine


Ok I have no idea what you're talking about.

Goto The Pagan Geek and click on witch school. It takes about 3 days to get a 1st degree in the Tradition.

[kittiepoetrygod]

Originally posted by mol


I will call it initiation, because that is what it was...

LOL. That just struck me as funny. No offense intended.

I think thats a case where it depends on what you mean by them ... and i think our deffinitions for the two different words are similar.

[Flar's Freyja]

You have an excellent point. I am currently involved in trying to establish a community in our area. Someone else began the effort about a year ago. There's been no response, and my opinion is that this was because although the group was presented as Pagan, the information presented was mainly Wiccan. I recently explained to the individual that all Pagans are not Wiccan, and not all witches are necessarily Wiccan. I was annoyed that I even had to explain it. During my first year, I did describe myself as Eclectic - because I was learning and considering and using little bits of many traditions. I was probably doing your pet peeve because I was calling myself Eclectic Wiccan.

Recently I was having problems with the open group concept. I felt that some in our community were not really there for spiritual reasons and that it was more like a rebellion and need to be different. I have been giving serious thought as to whether I need to seek a coven.

Lately the Goddess and God have been dragging me kicking and screaming toward Asatru. Lo and behold, I was just told that a kinship may be forming soon.............

I am Pagan.

[Myst]

Originally posted by kittiepoetrygod
Goto The Pagan Geek and click on witch school. It takes about 3 days to get a 1st degree in the Tradition.

That would make you a dedicant of *that* tradition, which isn't equitable to dedicating yourself to a deity or to studying Wicca as a whole.

[Theres]

initiation in 3 days?
how deep... instant enlightenment!

[Flar's Freyja]

Oh, there will soon be a dedication to a deity. I've been looking at Wicca as a whole since I started, and another point is that with all of the "eclecticism" out there a lot of the information can be quite confusing.

Ah well, I am a social worker by profession and we are truly an eclectic mix of the disciplines, seems fitting that I would get tangled up in all of this..............

Our New Moon ritual lasted over three hours last night, it was very powerful, and today I remember very little of it...........then stayed out way too late with friends.......slept too long and dreamed of my cats insisting on coming with me in the car and worrying that one would get left at our destination.....feeling too out of it today to get into much philosophical discussion, she turns away, making gestures of apology........

[Twilight Garden]

This might be off-topic, but a thought just occured to me. What about an "eclectic" pagan? Is that possible? What would that be? Someone who believes in mostly pagan ways, but also borrows from other religions too? Or someone who may be a blend of different pagan religions? Like say: a one who practices Wicca but also incorporate some native american aspects, for example?...

[nehelia]

to me, dedication involves some sort of dedication of yourself, be it to deities entites yourself, whatever. an initiation is, in effect, an ordeal that changes you as you go through it. but many people have many different definitions about those two words

instant enlightenment sounds like it goes well with Pledge disposable cleaning cloths and Taco Bell cheese


lunarmist, my idea of eclectic paganism is basically that--a pagan path that incorporates other elements, perhaps native american trads, perhaps Hinduism, Shinto, or Asatru beliefs, with the result of a personal unique belief system that respects all the traditions it incorporates and works best for the individual. . .

[Theres]

agreed.
to my mind, 'Paganism' is a fairly umbrella-like term that covers ALOT of different paths including (but certainly not limited to) Wicca. but Wicca is a fairly distinct path within that framework. so 'Eclectic Pagan' seems fairly natural. but 'Eclectic Wiccan' is a wide open, undefined term that could mean ANYTHING! and THAT was the purpose of this thread.

and as far as initiation goes, i tend to agree with Nehelia.
i was initiated at a 2nd degree level on 1/13 /00. but i wasn't initiated into a specific coven. and i know that alot of people would dismiss this as meaningless. but let me tell you, it meant ALOT to me! it was 'trial by ordeal' in it's most intense form, and was not at all entered into frivolously. i was initiated by my teacher after a year and a day plus five years, and it was INCREDIBLE! i have NEVER been put through such a rite, and the only reason i went through it was my dedication to my path.
so tell me that what i endured was any less meaningful than an initiation into a lineaged coven!
the point is that one's personal dedication is the key, and NOT a pedigree. but there is a definition of what it is you're dedicated too.

[Myst]

I wouldn't call someone like that "Eclectic Pagan" but *just* Pagan, being as Pagan usually encompasses various beliefs from various religions anyway.

[mol]

Originally posted by Greenman

and as far as initiation goes, i tend to agree with Nehelia.
i was initiated at a 2nd degree level on 1/13 /00. but i wasn't initiated into a specific coven. and i know that alot of people would dismiss this as meaningless. but let me tell you, it meant ALOT to me! it was 'trial by ordeal' in it's most intense form, and was not at all entered into frivolously.

And thats when the hammer hits the nail.

Did you see that folks? "it meant ALOT to me!" That is all She wrote. You can say this and that, quote facts and fiction, give us scriptures, experiences, etc and it doesnt change anything. Initiation and Dedications being both very different have one thing in common. They are personal experiences. A person can come up to you and say that it was not valid. That person is wrong. It was valid to YOU.

[Myst]

I think there's an important distinction to make there. Telling something an experience or belief they have is invalid is probably just going to get them to think you're a dumb@$$.

For me, when I say something like "if you don't have alexandrian or gardnerian beliefs you aren't Wiccan" isn't me saying your beliefs are invalid. It's me saying I wouldn't call your belief system Wiccan, but Pagan or some other term. For example, if you just believe in polar deities I will probably think of you as Pagan but not necessarily Wiccan, because to me Wiccan is far more then that. I'm not trying to say your beliefs are invalid, just that I'd use a different term. And I say that to comment and make you think; not because I think anyone else has to believe what I do.

And by "alexandrian or gardnerian beliefs" I mean practices and beliefs reminiscent of those covens or groups beliefs; not necessarily that you were initiated into an alexandrian coven at all.

The bottom line, in either situation, is that you should do research and spend time working out what you believe and what terms you would use and why.