Transformative Wicca

[Snapdragon]

This thread is initiated in response to the very fruitful and interesting thread about "Reformist" Wicca. This is not an attempt to adapt or build upon that thread--it's just a response.

A couple of decades ago, after I'd been in the Craft for a few years, I decided to initiate a new tradition. I called it Transformative Wicca, inasmuch as that expressed my view at the time (and which I still hold) that Wicca is primarily about creating and going through (being) Change.

I had some flyers printed up, got a few paying members, and...decided to forget it. Why? Partly, it's because I'm satisfied with the Craft to be as it has always been--largely unorganized. It is mostly constituted of solitaires/solitaries, and many covens, any number of which are never publicly known. It is, of all religions, literally the creation of its members; those who practice magic understand this better than anyone else could.

So I folded it. I'm not going to start something up now, but it seems to me worthwhile to bring up a few of the central ideas of Transformative Wicca. It's a way for me to make what you might want to call a credal statement or a catechism or just my "take" on things. I'm doing this (I hope it's obvious) to stimulate your own reflection and to invite your comments.

Wicca is a religion based upon two main principles: that the divine is immanent, meaning here and now, not in some other realm; and the divine is first and foremost understood and worshipped as female. In Transformative Wicca, there is no hierarchy: each communicant is a priest/priestess, and there is no need of any intermediary to facilitate the communication of worshipper with the worshipped. There can be ritual in the Transformative tradition, but ritual is not the heart of Wicca. It is the heart that matters most, and that is the feeling, the flow of creative Power, within and among the celebrants, whether solitaire or gathered together in coven.

That is the core of the matter. There's a lot more that could be said, but I'll add one further thought. The realization that the sacred is present and manifest especially in the feminine mode, has echoes all throughout life. It says a lot about power in our world, about how women are to be treated, about the place of feeling in human society, and about the relative importance of cooperation versus competition. If you worship Her, you cannot and won't want to mistreat your wife, lover, friend, daughter, sister, etc. If you understand the sacred as present, that this is it, you won't be willing to wait for some pie-in-the-sky-when-you-die reward while the world is being destroyed. And so on. What I'm saying here, is that there are outcomes to this kind of view, especially when that view is felt and not just held as an idea.

That is the core of the matter.

[Greyharp]

Did Gardner's original followers concentrate first and foremost on the Goddess? Or did they see both the God and Goddess as equal? And another question, did this same group of people believe the All Gods are One God theory, or did they believe they were all separate, unique individuals, or some other idea entirely?

[Snapdragon]

It has been a long time since I read Gardner, and I never was terribly concerned about the scholarly aspect of the Craft. That said, my general impression is that Wicca has always been a religion where "female is first," even where Goddess and God are both acknowledged. I have no problem with others who may wish to assert their equality...in fact, I can see that they may be equal with the feminine principle being acknowledged first. In my own observation, though, the Craft is essentially gynocentric.

So far as the all-gods-are-one shtick is concerned, again I don't know what the group originally around Gardner held to (my guess, knowing pagans, is that they held to various contradictory views), but the "closet monotheist" view typified by Starhawk, e.g., is only one strand in the amorphous tapestry of Wicca.

Perhaps you seek a scholar, eh? If you do, then expect the issue of authority and True Credentials to follow not far behind. Good luck. ;-)

[Erincelt]

From what I recall of my reading Gardner's works, and other early writings, the God & Goddess were considered equal, while the human leaders (High Priestess and High Priest) were not -- the High Priestess was prime. The myth cycle regarding the God and Goddess asserts that, while She wields all power, She does so because He chooses to offer her power. (In other words "the most fertile garden will grow nothing without a seed.") While on the other hand, while He is the source of all power, She offers the proper guidance and wisdom to apply it fruitfully. (In other words "the most stubborn seed will not grow but in fertile land.") They are co-dependant.

Then there's the "Dryghton" assertion (that the God and Goddess are manifest of an ultimate, singular, indifferent reality or god).

However I do strongly agree that one of Wicca's foundational tenets is that the divine is, as you say, immanent. The inherent divine is probably our strongest assertion. Although I would say Wicca is also at least partly defined by its established methods of practice.


It is the heart that matters most, and that is the feeling, the flow of creative Power, within and among the celebrants, whether solitaire or gathered together in coven.
I actually agree, with vehemence. The rest of it (the iconography and mythology, the ritual formulae, and whatnot) is designed to promote exactly that. It is what some religious scholars refer to as Spiritual Ecstacy. I think they picked a good word for it. ;)

[Snapdragon]

I am utterly jealous of your avatar. It's bad enough that I have none--and yours is truly fab.

[Greyharp]

From what I recall of my reading Gardner's works, and other early writings, the God & Goddess were considered equal

That is what my understanding has been also. Which is why I felt the seemingly imbalanced focus of the Goddess in Transformative Wicca wasn't true to the religion of Gardner's day. That is my reflection and comment. :)

Dave

[Lunacie]

I had some flyers printed up, got a few paying members, and...decided to forget it.

Paying members? What were they paying for? I've never been part of a coven or circle where the members had to pay for anything beyond chipping in or taking turns buying wine and cakes and candles and such.

that the divine is immanent,

I absolutely agree with this, and find it one of the most compelling beliefs of Wicca in particular and Paganism in general.

and the divine is first and foremost understood and worshipped as female

...not by a long chalk. A couple of things about Wiccan beliefs really resonate with me and drew me to Wicca instead of any other religion, and those were the divine being immanent and the balance between the natural forces (i.e. male & female, dark & light, boon & bane, etc.).

In Transformative Wicca, there is no hierarchy: each communicant is a priest/priestess, and there is no need of any intermediary to facilitate the communication of worshipper with the worshipped.

I agree with this too. Even if someone never becomes a student of Wicca or works with a group or a teacher to become a high priest/ess or teacher themselves (i.e. outer court but never inner court) they are still quite capable of communing with the divine and discovering the Mysteries for themselves. Wicca is an experiential religion, not one that is revealed by select holy persons.

The realization that the sacred is present and manifest especially in the feminine mode, has echoes all throughout life.

It is my belief that all life is sacred, whatever form it takes. Although some life certainly hides or denies their own sacredness. I tend to find my own balance between being sacred and being a real putz.

[Snapdragon]

I've been thinking about this thread and the exchange in it, and realized that I haven't said the thing I most want to emphasize. I think that's because I got caught up in the "what did Gardner think" subcurrent in the discussion. What I want to say doesn't concern that at all.

I view--feel, experience, believe--the sacred feminine to be what the world needs, what is in fact emerging into Being, "coming forward" in ritual and ecstatic worship. My entire devotion is turned toward the feminine and is focused on Kali. What keeps my perspective--which I've called Transformative Wicca--from being Dianic is that I acknowledge male deity, masculine resonances, in the flux. However, these are clearly an "afterthought," secondary to the sacred feminine.

I'm not going to create an argument here for why this should be, as I'm not concerned to persuade or "convert" anyone. As with everything I do, I offer it as an expression of longing, of mindfulness, and of calling Her forward into Being, embodied as women and all the resonances of femaleness. She is first, the feminine leads the masculine, and this meditation which is joyful and determined, reveals two genders: the worshipped and the worshiper. This often corresponds with the female and the male, though not from any "law" that I can discern. Nor does 'worship' here mean simple parroting or mindless Stepford-style followership. It is meant to give something in offering that might be worthy of Her, delicious to Her tongue, pleasing to Her eyes, and suitable for Her feet to tread upon.

Jail Kali maa! Blessed Be.

[Arion]

hat said, my general impression is that Wicca has always been a religion where "female is first,"
ummm... no. I think that Wicca's reputation as a "Goddess religion" is fairly new. From my understanding, originally the Horned God was the prime being of worship for Gardner and it was Doreen Valiente who emphasized the Goddess as equal. Though even if you read Doreen's books, the Horned God still seems more important. I've only read Witchcraft for Tomorrow, but in the chapter on the gods, the Horned God was given long and detailed descriptions, while the moon goddess was only mentioned here and there. Even the invocations to the God in the book of shadows at the back are longer and seem more important than the Goddess ones.

... I don't know. i gave up on Wicca a while ago because of the specific roles assigned to each sex. Male, female.. it's all the same.

[Erincelt]

i gave up on Wicca a while ago because of the specific roles assigned to each sex. Male, female.. it's all the same.
Out of curiousity, would you elaborate on this? Starting a new thread would be fine. :)

[Arion]

Out of curiousity, would you elaborate on this? Starting a new thread would be fine. :)
Hehe, it's just that in a lot of the books I was reading about Wicca, they would use a lot of stereotypical qualities of males and females to describe the Goddess and God. Goddess=nurturing, loving, passive, God= active, aggressive, passionate, for example. I relate better to Feri Witchcraft's view of gender as being fluid, and male and female are only seperate in the physical world.

The Wiccan view of the God confused the heck out of me too. You could tell it was women who were writing it, because it seemed more like how women wanted men to be, instead of more typical masculine characteristics. I think it's just hard for anybody to sum up characteristics of the genders because we are all so different.

[Snapdragon]

Hehe, it's just that in a lot of the books I was reading about Wicca, they would use a lot of stereotypical qualities of males and females to describe the Goddess and God. Goddess=nurturing, loving, passive, God= active, aggressive, passionate, for example. I relate better to Feri Witchcraft's view of gender as being fluid, and male and female are only seperate in the physical world.

The Wiccan view of the God confused the heck out of me too. You could tell it was women who were writing it, because it seemed more like how women wanted men to be, instead of more typical masculine characteristics. I think it's just hard for anybody to sum up characteristics of the genders because we are all so different.

Originating as a rural Mystery/fertility religion, Wicca was based upon observations of animals and typical humans. I don't believe that has changed much. You will find similar dualities in Taoism, in Tantric Hinduism, and elsewhere. That these observations can be variously expressed and are inevitably not inclusive of all people (or animals) is a truism. I can safely generalize about the masculine and feminine, but only that--generalize.

So it is in Wicca, and those generalizations are familiar to most people. Hope that's helpful.

p.s. I despise Deviant Art's hypocrisy about not allowing hatred to be fostered against groups of people--they are enablers of that very thing! My Journal and user page was deleted for protesting their hosting pro-Nazi images.

[Erincelt]

Hehe, it's just that in a lot of the books I was reading about Wicca, they would use a lot of stereotypical qualities of males and females to describe the Goddess and God. Goddess=nurturing, loving, passive, God= active, aggressive, passionate, for example. I relate better to Feri Witchcraft's view of gender as being fluid, and male and female are only seperate in the physical world.

The Wiccan view of the God confused the heck out of me too. You could tell it was women who were writing it, because it seemed more like how women wanted men to be, instead of more typical masculine characteristics. I think it's just hard for anybody to sum up characteristics of the genders because we are all so different.

See now here's where you confused me. From your post, I thought you were referring to specific gender roles of Wiccans ourselves, which really aren't common other than the High Priest / High Priestess roles (which may or may not be all that different, depending on the Tradition, or may even rotate). The Lord & Lady certainly do have very stereotypical gender-specific qualities... They do, and they should -- because that is in fact precisely what they represent in the first place! You said such distinctions only exist in the physical world; bear in mind the God & Goddess are the high divinities of the physical world, therefore they will exhibit such distinctions. Also, however, note that they are fluid in their domains, in that neither is complete or powerful without the other. So while they have their roles, they also show that we do not find our true power until we transcend our roles and come together.

But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong. ;)

[Arion]

Originating as a rural Mystery/fertility religion, Wicca was based upon observations of animals and typical humans. I don't believe that has changed much. You will find similar dualities in Taoism, in Tantric Hinduism, and elsewhere. That these observations can be variously expressed and are inevitably not inclusive of all people (or animals) is a truism. I can safely generalize about the masculine and feminine, but only that--generalize.

Lord & Lady certainly do have very stereotypical gender-specific qualities... They do, and they should -- because that is in fact precisely what they represent in the first place! You said such distinctions only exist in the physical world; bear in mind the God & Goddess are the high divinities of the physical world, therefore they will exhibit such distinctions. Also, however, note that they are fluid in their domains, in that neither is complete or powerful without the other. So while they have their roles, they also show that we do not find our true power until we transcend our roles and come together.

You both make good points and I get what your saying. I hope I didnt't give the impression that God and Goddess duality is wrong, I just mean to say that I don't relate to it personally, but hey, whatever floats your boat. Being a homosexual person, I don't recognize fertility as the ultimate manifestation of divine creation, either. Back when I considered myself Wiccan, I really struggled with differentiating the God from the Goddess. They both seemed to stand for the same thing except that one was male and one was female, so I didn't really see the point of having dual divinity if their only difference was their sex, and how can divinity have a sex anyway?

The concept of divinity in Feri just suits me a lot better. The ultimate being is the Star Goddess and she contains all polarities within herself. Maleness and femaleness result from different parts of herself spiraling in opposite directions. The sexes and genders are a result of the divine act of creation, not directly concerned with creation itself except in the physical world. It also leaves a lot more room for gay/lesbian/bisexual/gender queer feelings to be considered just as divine as heterosexual relations when fertility is not an issue. Ecstasy is the "goal," not fertility.

In general, I'm not a big fan of duality. It seperates different parts us and could prevent us from recognizing ourselves as whole. Both logical and emotional, loving and powerful, male and female, all are parts of a whole.

I hope I'm making some sense...

p.s. I despise Deviant Art's hypocrisy about not allowing hatred to be fostered against groups of people--they are enablers of that very thing! My Journal and user page was deleted for protesting their hosting pro-Nazi images.

Snapdragon, I'm pretty new at DA, but I'm sorry to hear about your unfair experience.

[Snapdragon]

As I explained when initiating this thread, my "take" on Wicca is very much founded on the basis of "female is first." For those posters who replied with the standard equal-but-dual-gods version of Wicca, I want to share this extract from a book I'm reading. It is The Triumph of the Moon, by Ronald Hutton. It's a very current book that describes the roots of contemporary Wicca. Here is the extract:

235-36 By uniting paganism with the figure of the witch, in the Leland and Murray tradition, it automatically preempted any easy reconciliation of the result with Christianity or with conventional social mores; it was full-blown countercultural religion of the sort after which people such as Dion Byngham had hankered. This was supercharged by the fact that it paid no reverence to any Great Spirit, Prime Mover, or World Soul, who might be equated with Jehovah, [begin 236] but to the nature goddess and the horned god who had arisen in the nineteenth century as the favorite deities of the positive, life-affirming language of paganism. Although both were invoked at different times in the various rituals, with equal honors, it was only the goddess who had been given a set speech to her worshippers; the divine feminine had been accorded a distinct edge over the masculine in a manner which was, again, startlingly radical.

End of extract. The reason I posted it was to show that, even in the contemporary origins of Wicca (the extract appears in the chapter devoted to Gerald Gardner), the goddess is given an "edge." Doing as all Wiccans do, I have found what "resonates" most fully for me, and it extends that originating predominance of the sacred feminine. Effectively, I worship only Kali, though I acknowledge an infinity of other Powers. My focus is only upon the feminine principle, de facto making my work Dianic--though, unlike true Dianics, I do acknowledge the gods.

Incidentally, I also noted that Wicca was originally conceived as a religion not congenial to that one most of use very definitely left and to which we do not care to return...even to loiter around. It seems anymore, that you can't get away from it...even at a "pagan sanctuary." 'Nuff said.

[Greyharp]

even in the contemporary origins of Wicca (the extract appears in the chapter devoted to Gerald Gardner), the goddess is given an "edge."

I'm not sure that this is entirely accurate. When Gardner produced the "old" laws in 1957, it painted a slightly different picture of the nature of "Wica" at that time:

"For the Gods love the Wica, as a man loveth a woman by mastering her" and "For, the God himself, kissed her feet in the five fold salute, laying his power at the feet of the Goddess...So he resigned his lordship to her, But the Priestess should ever mind that all power comes from him."

From all that I've read I believe the first decade or so of Gardner's Wicca, the God and Goddess were equal partners, in spite of his sexist mindset in the above quote. The pre-eminence of the Goddess began, I believe in the mid 60s and was in full swing by the early 70s. I am of the opinion that it is this latter period that is referred to by Hutton in the quote you have provided.

Margaret Murray's Witch-Cult in Western Europe, which so strongly influenced Gardner (she wrote the introduction to his book Witchcraft Today) and on which Gardner without a doubt heavily based his religion of Wica, hardly mentions the Goddess at all, but focuses mainly on the God. And it's interesting to note that the founders of the two main Wiccan movements are men - Gardner and Alex Sanders. I mention these things to point out that Wicca was originally skewed towards male dominance. (It later went to the opposite extreme, but mostly seems to have found a balance these days).

Wicca has evolved thankfully, but I don't think the Goddess originally had the "edge" on the God. Gardner was no doubt a product of his time. It's also interesting to read in his laws that when the coven's High Priestess starts to age, she is to be traded in for a younger, pretty model, yet no mention is made of trading in the old High Priest for a younger man.

[KeaErisdottir]

"For the Gods love the Wica, as a man loveth a woman by mastering her" and "For, the God himself, kissed her feet in the five fold salute, laying his power at the feet of the Goddess...So he resigned his lordship to her, But the Priestess should ever mind that all power comes from him."

From all that I've read I believe the first decade or so of Gardner's Wicca, the God and Goddess were equal partners, in spite of his sexist mindset in the above quote.

Sexist? Where, may I ask, is this sexism? It is my position that those who choose to base that argument on the 'by mastering her' phrase have chosen to only see one meaning, and a highly limiting one at that. In a religion with as strong a sexual component as Wicca has, the mastering of a woman, and for that matter, of a man, is also an important key to the bliss of ego transcendance and communion with the Gods. When we leave behind the ghosts of feminism and think about the religion itself, this becomes a lot easier to see.

Further, the exchange of power between the Goddess and the God in the Descent is a willing and consensual act. She chooses to seek the answer to the Mystery of Death, and surrenders her power to the Darkness. He, in turn, resigns his own power to her, willingingly, for no other reason than he loves her. As the Priestess is the representative of the Goddess, she channels the power of the God in the same way that the Goddess does--sourced from the God through the Priest. There is no sexism in this story, no coercion, and no supposition that either male or female is superior.