Creating a More Cohesive Wicca

[RainInanna]

Recent discussions have suggested some feel Wicca is too "scattered" and "undefined" to be meaningful. Certainly it is still considered by many to be a fairly new religion with room to grow. The question is, should and can we come to some agreement as to what Wicca is? How do we avoid elitism and dictating strict rules, while still working towards a more cohesive idea of what Wicca is? Do we need to, or should we continue to let it become so eclectic as to be considered unrecognizable by many? Is there a middle ground between too undefined and too rigid? How do we find it?

One of the major problems, IMHO, has been newer books and other sources that claim to be Wiccan and in and of themselves suggest Wicca is "whatever you want it to be". Do you feel this trend continues now, or have you seen more people who do want to suggest what defines Wicca? Is there any way to get past this stumbling block?

Another major problem, IMHO, is misunderstandings on common Wiccan beliefs such as the rede and threefold law. It seems many are confused by the rede, and often are outright hostile when it is suggested that they do not fully understand it. I have certainly seen many who insist it means "never harm anyone" and therefore disregard Wicca as "fluffy" and "stupid". Even more so, as I mentioned in another thread, I see people who are more concerned with insisting they aren't Wiccan and what's wrong with it than truly understanding what it entails. How can we educate others, especially if they are already predisposed to considering Wiccans "elitist" and "fluffy" for believing in the rede?

Do you feel that eventually Wicca will be so diluted as to be meaningless except to those who are traditionalists? Do you feel that it's early popularity is now to dissolve into disgust from non-Wiccans? Do you feel we can and should try to rebuild Wicca as a meaningful, deep religion? Or has it's initial popularity become it's undoing?

[Lunacie]

Wow, so many questions I don't know where to begin sharing my viewpoint.

I've also been troubled by all the messages I'm seeing from people who clearly don't understand the meaning behind things like the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law. I've explained them both several times in different threads here on MW but I feel like I'm whistling into the wind and no one hears me. I've talked to other Wiccans who feel the same. How do we compensate for the great amount of misinformation that has been published by authors who apparently had little if any training by someone who knows what Wicca is all about? Especially when there are thousands of websites that perpetuate that misinformation and so many people who believe it simply because they read it in a book or on a website.

There were also a couple of threads around here where several of us came to 'almost' a concensus on the basic or core beliefs and practices that are common to Wicca.

[Eran]

I think these are all excellent questions! I commend the concerns behind them.

I think there are going to be a number of strong trends, and I don't know if much can be done about them other than to participate in whichever parts of that one is drawn to.

One of the trends is the desire expressed here, to understand Wicca on a deep level, to explore and describe the valuable and deep things it has to offer. Every religion has its mystics. Wiccan mystics know that the religion is not fluffy and scattered, they know that it has depth and history and strength. They know that the criticisms are misplaced, that most of the books on the subject are misleading and senseless at best.

Another trend is the enshallowment of the religion (new word, just coined - to make something more shallow). Most Witchcrap books on the market today describe Wicca as little more than feel-good fluff. (Most of the "I'm a Witch but not a Wiccan!" people don't really know what Wicca is in the first place, having been misled by the fluffy mass-market cotton candy.) On the other hand, there are people who really need something that is no more than comfortable and warm, and if that is valuable to them, who are we to deny it to them?

This too is found in every religion - the majority of any religion's adherents really know very little about the religion's deep myth or theology or symbolism. Each person takes from a religion what they bring to it, and for better or ill, they find what they seek.

The best we can do is to follow the depth where we can, to seek others interested in exploring those truths, and to let it be known that the depth is there so other seekers can find it if they want to. And now and again, we'll have to repeat (endlessly, it seems) that what most people "know" about Wicca is not all there is, that the descriptions in most popular books are shallow at best - false and downright offensive at worst.

Thank you for raising this topic! It's an important one, and deserves all the discussion it can get.

[Greybird]

Or has it's initial popularity become it's undoing?

I don't think I would use 'undoing', but the fact is that Wicca has become the public face of paganism. People within a pursuit tend to forget the perspective of people outside of that pursuit. Of the non-Pagan world (which is the vast, vast majority of people), the only exposure they get to Paganism is through the mainstream media. We've actually been getting some positive mainstream press lately, but the issue is that we're invariably described as 'Wicca, a Pagan religion...', and the authors rarely have the background to know when it is and is not appropriate to use the terms interchangably.

We're just - as I said - the public face of modern paganism, the most numerous, and for a reporter, the easiest to find information on (a reporter is going to do a quick google or grab the first general book they see before an interview - they don't have time to do a week's research for every story.)

Here's the point: 95% of the population has never heard of modern Paganism outside of the context of Wicca. Ever. That isn't Wicca's fault, nor is the the fault of Wiccans. It is just the way the media works. Unfortunately, it has generated some resentment amongst some other parts of the Pagan community who are tired of being identified as Wiccan when they're not. They need to understand that the source of that isn't Wicca or Wiccans, it is the fact that most people they meet are going to be unknowingly working from faulty information. They should see it as an opportunity to inform, not as some sort of 'attack' from Wicca.

[Lolair]

How do we compensate for the great amount of misinformation that has been published by authors who apparently had little if any training by someone who knows what Wicca is all about? Especially when there are thousands of websites that perpetuate that misinformation and so many people who believe it simply because they read it in a book or on a website.
I agree with my Gardnerian partner's opinion that there is too much 'wimpcraft' in Wicca and covens. My thoughts are that this is due to the "watering down" of Wiccan practices due to it's popularity - pretty much the reasons Lunacie's has listed above.

I don't think there's really any way to get around the spread of false information other than to just keep battling it with true info and practices. In my opinion the true seekers see through the bs and search for the "real thing." I started out in Wicca, but didn't like the bs I was fed so I started looking outside of the information fed to the general populous. I've certainly learned a lot since then and I am a lot more happy with my craft. I think that there is a place for the wimpcraft, some people are just not meant for the real thing and if wimpcraft is as far as they can go, then that is their path and they are happy with it. I have met some amazing Wiccans who really know their stuff and are very grounded and spiritual - and I know people on the other end of the spectrum that never got beyond a few basic books and go to the odd pagan meetup.

I think there's a place for all levels - as long as the "fluffies" are reading the Llewellyn books they're leaving the real meat of the craft for those who can handle it. Let's be honest, many people love the idea of witchcraft, but not everyone has the stomach or the ability for it. This is why so many covens are selective and have pretty extensive screening processes...


We're just - as I said - the public face of modern paganism, the most numerous, and for a reporter, the easiest to find information on (a reporter is going to do a quick google or grab the first general book they see before an interview - they don't have time to do a week's research for every story.
I agree very much with your post Greybird. It made me very frustrated to realize that 95% of population and 80% of pagans have never heard of paths outside of Wicca. However as a witch that doesn't just stick with positive magic, I'm fine with with 'witchcraft' being portrayed as a bunch of Wiccan tree-hugging goddess-worshippers in the news. It makes the craft look harmless and nothing for Christian fundies to get their panties in a twist over...

[talamh]

Maybe it a good thing that a lot of people get mis-led by inaccurate information. Sometimes I like the idea that it's all right there - hidden in plain view but only seen by those who know what they are looking for. Any idea or concept is going to get watered down and mis-represented by mainstream culture. And some parts of Wiccan practice simply can't be conveyed in words alone.

When you stop and think about it, just about every "spiritual" construct has at least one corner that can be described as a "mystery". Wicca is like every other human activity - people find their own level of comfort or practice... or misrepresentation. Even if anyone could come up with some form of "Wicca police" it would be just as offensive in Wicca as it is in any other belief system. As long as people aren't discriminated against because of their Wiccan/pagan beliefs, I say leave it alone. People will sort it out for themselves.

[Elderbush]

I think that many people make too big a deal about the diversity within Wicca. If you look at other religions, they have a whole spectrum as well and many people who point the finger at others and declare that they are whatever current buzzword takes their fancy. Does it do any good? No. The people who get called the names ignore them and rightly so.

Solid traditions will continue mainly because they have learned to survive and have something to attract/offer newcomers who are relatively sane. Those traditions that fail will do so because they aren't stable. Wicca will continue however. It will change and evolve because religions do.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm one of those people who believe that the diversity of Wicca is one of its greatest strengths. It's also a direct consequence of Wicca being based on autonomy -- the Laws that Gardner presented to the coven back in the 1950s (which were partially the reason why Doreen Valiente left his group) included clear acceptance of diversity. If a difference of opinion arose in a coven over practice, theology, or whatever then it was acceptable for the disagreeing parties to go their separate ways as two covens where there was one. And each coven was explicitly described as autonomous.

To me, attempts to establish a single Wiccan orthodoxy or central authority figure (council, Pope, single holy scripture, whatever) goes against the autonomy that has been in Wicca since the early days with Gardner. Specific denominations can have whatever structure and authority they want but I think we should be very reluctant to permit an orthodoxy or authority to be imposed on all Wiccans.

[Elderbush]

I just don't see how anyone can establish a central authority. If you look at history - ie. other religions - pretty much the only way that one faction within a religion establish supremacy over the other factions is through bloodshed or compromise. The Principles of Wiccan Belief are an example of compromise between the different groups in American in 1974. It defined Wicca very vaguely because of it. Killing off the opposition is frowned on these days.

[inkywitch]

I don't think that there should be a central authority, that was one think that really appealed to me when I found Wicca, many moons ago. I just think that the misinformation and misinterpretation concerning key parts of Wicca need to be addressed. It's almost as if there is a whole new tradition forming that people keep labeling Wicca, when in reality it has grown in to something different.

[ancestral_lee]

all those who misunderstand the rede and law of threefold, all those who are into the superficial pop-wicca, all those who are part of the enshallowment and all those who are too mindless to really delve into the mysteries will fall by the wayside and leave Wica alone, and in 25 years the fashion will have moved on and there where they have always been will be those covens who got on with things quietly in their own deep and fulfilling way. they will be the ones who used gardner's work, passed it on, learned with it and added to it in their own individual way.

BB

[Elderbush]

My opinion is that there is surviving as the Shakers survive, with few numbers and more or less the same population for 20 years, and surviving by change and diversity and growth. Within Wicca I believe that there will be both populations.

If a coven survives, it will be due to the people who belong to it in my experience. If they are pleasant people who can get along with others and work together for common goals, changing behaviors and rules when necessary in order to serve the members better, and who are welcoming of and can attract newcomers then yes a coven will survive - as long as that holds true. A great many people are solitaries because the groups they've encountered within Wicca are run by crazy people.

This is one of the big problems that I see that Wicca faces. It isn't the religion itself which works for and makes sense to a lot of people. It is the problems with small groups. One person can tear it apart. A leader can burn out. This sort of stuff is more manageable in large groups because there are others to balance it out. In a small group, it can be the kiss of death. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

[Eran]

This is one of the big problems that I see that Wicca faces. It isn't the religion itself which works for and makes sense to a lot of people. It is the problems with small groups. One person can tear it apart. A leader can burn out. This sort of stuff is more manageable in large groups because there are others to balance it out. In a small group, it can be the kiss of death. Does anyone have any ideas about this?
You're absolutely correct about this. Destructive individuals can wreak havoc on our covens and in our community.

If I may, allow me to recommend http://esoterica.bichaunt.org/Trolls/index.html as a resource in understanding and dealing with destrutive people in a Coven setting.

[RainInanna]

Thank you for the insights. I was getting rather frustrated with, as many have pointed out, saying the same things over and over and feeling like I was "whistling into the wind". For the first time I find myself wanting to avoid people due to intolerance within the Pagan community towards Wicca!



It's almost as if there is a whole new tradition forming that people keep labeling Wicca, when in reality it has grown in to something different.

What do people think of using the terms "NeoWicca" and "Traditional Wicca", or what other terms do people think could be useful to help clarify?

[Elderbush]

I hate that, mainly because the of some BTW - traditionalists. They (some members of BTW) have turned NeoWicca into a passive aggressive insult and I think it says an awful lot more about the person using it than it does the person who gets labeled it.

I think that everyone should be up front first of all and name their tradition. Like I practice UEW Wicca. Anyone have any questions about what I believe, etc., all they have to do is look it up on the internet. This is simple. It works! It lets everyone know where you are coming from.

Then for the solitaries...just say you practice a Traditional style or an Eclectic style, if you feel compelled to offer more than just "I'm a Solitary Wiccan." Frankly, that is a group in itself and I don't think more than Solitary Wiccan is actually required.

If you are looking for people to call themselves "I'm a Fluffy Wiccan" or any other term they find insulting, don't hold your breath.

[RainInanna]

Then for the solitaries...just say you practice a Traditional style or an Eclectic style,

I note for some even "eclectic" has become a dirty word.

[Elderbush]

Huh. Well, it's still on my good list. :)

It seems to me that many Wiccans are too focused on what they are not rather than what they are. I am a UEW Wiccan. If I define myself by what I am then I do not have to define myself by what I am not.

[moonmorgan]

What is wrong with the American Council of Witches principles of Wiccan Belief? It sounds like a fair explanation of Wicca to me.

We don't need/want a leader, scripture or anything like that but we do need a set of items that help you decide if what you practice is Wicca or not.

As for Wicca being the only denomination most think of when they hear Pagan, that will change. Isn't it true that most people know more about Catholics than any other denomination of Christianity and that they automatically think of Catholics first? I do because they are talked about more.

As for terms like NeoWicca and Traditional Wicca, the first is redudnant, all Wicca is New (what Neo means.) Traditional Wicca is a little confusing since there are many traditions of Wicca but it should just be referred to as Gardernarian Wicca.

When talking to non Wiccans, we should say we are Wiccan. When talking to Wiccans, we should specify what tradition we are.

Wicca is not a make it up as you go along religion. We are open as Ben said and if you don't agree with the coven's teachings, you are welcome to create your own coven with altered beliefs. Isn't this how all the Christian denominations came around? Unfortunately, thanks to those who don't know what they are talking about, there are books and info out there saying you can do what you want and call it Wicca. This is why we need a set of beliefs/practices that constitute Wicca.

[Ben Gruagach]

I don't like the phrase traditional Wicca because it is confusing and misleading and is frequently used to mean very different things. For instance some people use the term to mean they are following an established Wiccan system like Gardnerian Wicca or Alexandrian Wicca or whatever. It would be more straightforward to call this denominational or sectarian Wicca since that is what it is.

Then there are some who use the phrase traditional Wicca to imply their variety of Wicca is older than the "newfangled" varieties which of course are supposed to be pale imitations of the real thing. Since some of the denominational Wiccan groups are actually quite new using the word traditional to mean old is rather confusing.

I'm not sure if there is anyone anyways who is practicing a form of Wicca that is 100% ancient. Even the oldest documented denomination, Gardnerian Wicca, has clearly integrated relatively new ideas and practices and so is not 100% ancient. I honestly don't think there are any Wiccans today who have not modified ancient witchcraft practices to include modern elements. So it brings into question the attempt to distinguish one variety of Wicca as more ancient than another -- since they all have modern stuff anyways, and they all also draw on ancient material too. (And in my humble opinion it's a rather silly point to fuss over. If it works for you, then great!)

Another problem with the whole definition debate is that the confusion between Wicca and Witch has been with us right from the start with Gardner. He used the terms as interchangeable, as synonyms. It's a more recent thing to distinguish the two as separate. I personally believe that Wicca is not the same as Witchcraft because not all Witches are Wiccans. To me Wiccan means based on Gardner's work either directly or indirectly. (I also feel the Principles of Wiccan Belief do as good a job as any at outlining the core of Wiccan belief.)

And this all still leaves us with huge room for variety whether anyone likes it or not. We don't all have to be the same to be Wiccan. Otherwise it sounds to me suspiciously like the "One True Religion" argument that rages perpetually in monotheistic religious communities. As a polytheist it just does not make sense to me.

By the way, a lot of the issues in this discussion are explored with a lot of interesting detail in Sarah M. Pike's "Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves." It's a great book!

[RainInanna]

Ah, just want to be clear that I'm not trying to suggest there should be "One True Wicca" or make judgements as to the validity of NeoWicca or eclectic Wicca, etc. etc.


It seems to me that many Wiccans are too focused on hat they are not rather than what they are.

I think Elderbush has an excellent point about pointing out one's tradition, and especially about focusing on what we are rather than what we're not. It seems we get so afraid of applying labels due to the idea that it's a value judgment that we cut short exploring labels at all. It seems often we don't want to consider clarifying what Wicca is to ensure no one gets left out, to the point where no one knows what Wicca is at all.

I think I'm so surprised by hostility when people declare "I'm not Wiccan" on MysticWicks because I trust this is a safe place for all Pagans. I don't see the need to be defensive about not being Wiccan here, same as I don't see the need to be defensive about whether one is traditional Wiccan or no. Honestly I'm not sure I consider myself Wiccan most of the time, though it inspires and interests me enough to continue learning. But it almost feels like we shoot ourselves in the foot in an effort to protect ourselves sometimes.

But then again, given the range of responses, I could be completely off base.

[Eran]

It is with a great deal of sadness and frustration that I note the hostility toward Traditionalist Witches - even to the point of misrepresenting our attitudes, objecting to what we wish to call ourselves, and blaming us for others' actions. Oh well, this is an excellent indication of the reasons for this thread - the need for a "More Cohesive Wicca", and the effects and techniques of destructive individuals (I again refer you to my essay on the topic, at http://esoterica.bichaunt.org/Trolls/index.html ).

If we can't even discuss the need to be more cohesive without engaging in attacks on one another, then surely any hope of a "More Cohesive Wicca" can be dismissed!

As I said, I suspect what will result is divergent paths, one more mass-market-oriented, the other more mystic and focused. Personally, I see need for them both - and as I said, since people find value where they may, it is not given to any of us to judge someone else's path. Undoubtedly there will continue to be tensions and false representations as well - that's sad, but it's in the nature of how the World works.

I will comment on only one rather obvious self-contradictory remark:

Another problem with the whole definition debate is that the confusion between Wicca and Witch has been with us right from the start with Gardner. He used the terms as interchangeable, as synonyms. It's a more recent thing to distinguish the two as separate.
If it is a "more recent thing to distinguish the two as separate", then clearly "the confusion" has not "been with us right from the start with Gardner". Obviously, the "confusion" did not exist until the "more recent" attempt to "distinguish the two as separate".

Anyway, as I have said many times, Wicca is huge and varied, and whether it should be or not, that is what it is. And I note with interest that we have found only one person in this forum who has claimed otherwise - and that person doesn't even identify herself as Wiccan. It's a shame we keep hearing about unnamed (and probably nonexistent) "others" who have objectionable attitudes - charges which are used unfairly to tar whole groups, and even whole Traditions.

In the end, the definitional debate is senseless anyway, because there will always be people who will object to any definition. Far better is to simply express what you are, and work with those with whom you can work, toward whatever goals you share. If others object to what you are or what you call yourself, that says more about their insecurities than it does about you.

[Ben Gruagach]

It is with a great deal of sadness and frustration that I note the hostility toward Traditionalist Witches - even to the point of misrepresenting our attitudes, objecting to what we wish to call ourselves, and blaming us for others' actions. Oh well, this is an excellent indication of the reasons for this thread - the need for a "More Cohesive Wicca", and the effects and techniques of destructive individuals (I again refer you to my essay on the topic, at http://esoterica.bichaunt.org/Trolls/index.html ).

If we can't even discuss the need to be more cohesive without engaging in attacks on one another, then surely any hope of a "More Cohesive Wicca" can be dismissed!

Gee -- I didn't realize presenting a dissenting point of view was automatically "hostility", "misrepresentating", and "blaming."



I will comment on only one rather obvious self-contradictory remark:

Another problem with the whole definition debate is that the confusion between Wicca and Witch has been with us right from the start with Gardner. He used the terms as interchangeable, as synonyms. It's a more recent thing to distinguish the two as separate.

If it is a "more recent thing to distinguish the two as separate", then clearly "the confusion" has not "been with us right from the start with Gardner". Obviously, the "confusion" did not exist until the "more recent" attempt to "distinguish the two as separate".

It's a logical fallacy to assume that something must be more correct because it is older. Saying Wiccan = Witch is definitely older than acknowledging a distinction between the two terms does not mean that one of the viewpoints is more or less correct because of their age. The proof in the pudding is which viewpoint can explain the evidence, including the fact that not all witches are Wiccans. Robert Cochrane and his followers were quite adamant in the 1960s that they were not Wiccans (not connected or drawing on Gardner's witchcraft system.) We have quite a few threads, and even whole sections here at MysticWicks for Witches who are not Wiccans. If all Witches are automatically Wiccans where do these people fit in?

How are we respecting those Witches who identify as non-Wiccan when we thrust the label of Wiccan upon them anyways?


Anyway, as I have said many times, Wicca is huge and varied, and whether it should be or not, that is what it is. And I note with interest that we have found only one person in this forum who has claimed otherwise - and that person doesn't even identify herself as Wiccan. It's a shame we keep hearing about unnamed (and probably nonexistent) "others" who have objectionable attitudes - charges which are used unfairly to tar whole groups, and even whole Traditions.

I guess all those witch wars, all the fuss raised over "fluffies" not being real Wiccans, all the attempts to push dismissive labels like "Neo-Wiccan" on those who don't toe the orthodox line are just a bad dream I've been having. Weird -- a lot of people seem to be having that same bad dream as me!


In the end, the definitional debate is senseless anyway, because there will always be people who will object to any definition. Far better is to simply express what you are, and work with those with whom you can work, toward whatever goals you share. If others object to what you are or what you call yourself, that says more about their insecurities than it does about you.

I'm not sure it's a senseless debate because it forces us to examine our own viewpoints, consider the viewpoints of others, and hopefully realize that our opinions are not necessarily proven facts unless they they have incontrovertible proof to back them up. But I do agree with you wholeheartedly that in the end all we can truly do is just do our own work, circle with those we trust, and let the concerns about what others think about us slide off us like water off a duck's back.

[Carla O'Harris]

...

As I said, I suspect what will result is divergent paths, one more mass-market-oriented, the other more mystic and focused.

I would just like to add that from my perspective, these can intertwine. Someone who has been introduced to something from a mass-market perspective can deepen into a mystical, focused practice, even if they have never had contact with others who were doing this all along. What this means is a continual weaving and intertwining, where some who have been reached through the mass market deepen their practice, and of those, some make stronger connections with already existing traditions (and of these, some out-and-out joining those traditions, and others letting those traditions enhance their own practice), while others merely deepen their own practice, sometimes to the point of its becoming a coherent tradition in its own right.

Beyond the value of both strands, the interweaving itself is I think potentially very valuable.

[Eran]

Sarcasm is not polite, Ben, and does not become you. It seems to border upon a disrespectful violation of the terms of service.

It's a logical fallacy to assume that something must be more correct because it is older.
Since no one implied such a thing in this conversation, you seem to be raising a straw man argument, which also is a logical fallacy. I said nothing about what was more "correct". Rather, I pointed out the inconsistency in the argument you presented. There clearly was no "confusion" when there was agreement. It was only later, when (by your own admission) there began to be divergent usage, that "confusion" came about.

Robert Cochrane and his followers were quite adamant in the 1960s that they were not Wiccans (not connected or drawing on Gardner's witchcraft system.)
I think Cochrane claimed merely to not be connected to Gardner. I don't think he said anything about whether he was "Wiccan". (You are free to correct me if I'm wrong; please supply a quote from Cochrane in which he said he was not "Wiccan".) It is you who equate Gardner and Wicca. I don't think Cochrane did this; I'm pretty sure he did not agree with the definition of "Wicca" that you are presenting here.

We have quite a few threads, and even whole sections here at MysticWicks for Witches who are not Wiccans. If all Witches are automatically Wiccans where do these people fit in? How are we respecting those Witches who identify as non-Wiccan when we thrust the label of Wiccan upon them anyways?
Since I don't agree with this viewpoint - that all Witches are automatically Wiccans, according to your definition of these words - I won't try to defend it. We've been through this before, and I confess I still haven't seen anyone actually "thrusting the label of Wiccan" upon anybody else. I would like to suggest this is another straw man argument.

I guess all those witch wars, all the fuss raised over "fluffies" not being real Wiccans, all the attempts to push dismissive labels like "Neo-Wiccan" on those who don't toe the orthodox line are just a bad dream I've been having. Weird -- a lot of people seem to be having that same bad dream as me!
If you have a specific accusation to make, please make it. If not, this sounds like still another straw man argument. (And again, since I agree with none of these attitudes, I will make no attempt to defend them.)

I think this all points up some of the difficulties raised by the topic of this thread. I don't know if we can be (or want to be) more "cohesive". I think diversity is a Very Good Thing, and we should feel free to pursue spirituality where we wish. Segments of the Pagan population will be "cohesive", and perhaps we can come together for some important issues of mutual interest, and can engage, I hope, in some productive conversations. Beyond that, I don't know if "cohesiveness" is a realistic goal.

I mentioned some antagonism which sometimes is leveled at Traditionalists. (I think we've seen some of that here, for example, with sarcastic mention of unnamed "others" who want to make people "toe the orthodox line" - I confess that does sound like a hostile and disrespectful statement to me.) Tension the other way has also been implied. This is the reason I suspect the definitional debate is often senseless - unless it can be had in a mutually respectful manner, it tends to degenerate rapidly into simple name-calling and non-specific innuendo. That is that part which is non-productive.

[Elderbush]

I would just like to add that from my perspective, these can intertwine. Someone who has been introduced to something from a mass-market perspective can deepen into a mystical, focused practice, even if they have never had contact with others who were doing this all along. What this means is a continual weaving and intertwining, where some who have been reached through the mass market deepen their practice, and of those, some make stronger connections with already existing traditions (and of these, some out-and-out joining those traditions, and others letting those traditions enhance their own practice), while others merely deepen their own practice, sometimes to the point of its becoming a coherent tradition in its own right.

Beyond the value of both strands, the interweaving itself is I think potentially very valuable.

Yes, I think you are so right. The many vibrant strands will enrich Wicca as it evolves and changes as well as the people who are affected by Wicca.

[RainInanna]

Segments of the Pagan population will be "cohesive", and perhaps we can come together for some important issues of mutual interest, and can engage, I hope, in some productive conversations.

Perhaps then the focus should not be on Wicca becoming more cohesive in an effort to cause change, but in asking how specific covens and groups create change in their own communities?

Perhaps that was my error all along, Christians have the advantage of being the majority and very public, but it is still the churches and groups who make a difference, not the whole religion at once.

[moonmorgan]

I think I'm so surprised by hostility when people declare "I'm not Wiccan" on MysticWicks because I trust this is a safe place for all Pagans.

I agree, but not just here. It makes me feel reluctant to say I'm Wiccan sometimes because I'm afraid people are going to assume I'm fluffy or am not serious about my religion which isn't true. I shouldn't feel that way.

As for hostility toward Traditional Wiccans and the correct because it's older thing:

You must realize that you are both misunderstanding the other and to be more careful with assumptions. Discussing why we are confused by terms like Traditional Wicca and why we think a better term could be used is not hostility towards those who practice the religion. Also, saying that Wicca and Witch were synonymous(sp?) in the beginning is not saying it's right.

It's hard to understand exactly what a person means through email or web, we should ask for clarification first.

[KeaErisdottir]

What is wrong with the American Council of Witches principles of Wiccan Belief? It sounds like a fair explanation of Wicca to me.

There's nothing wrong with it, unless you are not a signatory, or someone bound by the actions of a signatory to it, being told that you must live by it. Every instance I have seen where that has come up has turned toward a standards-based discussion of who is and is not Wiccan, based solely on that document.

When it moves away from service to the Gods, it's no longer Wicca.



As for terms like NeoWicca and Traditional Wicca, the first is redudnant, all Wicca is New (what Neo means.) Traditional Wicca is a little confusing since there are many traditions of Wicca but it should just be referred to as Gardernarian Wicca.

A) NeoWicca is clearly a different form of Wicca.

B) Traditional Wicca should not be all lumped together under the Gardnerian banner, because not all Traditional Wicca groups are Gardnerian or even BTW. This is where people who are confused should be accpeting some personal responsibility to learn enough to know what comprises Trad Wicca and cease the spread of misinformed stereotypes that further ignorance about them.


When talking to non Wiccans, we should say we are Wiccan. When talking to Wiccans, we should specify what tradition we are.

It's funny, because most of the people who know anyting at all about Wicca have met the flakes who say Wicca is whatever you want it to be. Since I don't practice flake-based Wicca, I have to speak to what I do practice, which is one of the many forms of Traditional Wicca.


Unfortunately, thanks to those who don't know what they are talking about, there are books and info out there saying you can do what you want and call it Wicca. This is why we need a set of beliefs/practices that constitute Wicca.

Which leads to some Council of Nicea for Wicca, which leads to Popes and Heresy, and popular opinion deciding what scraps of worship the Gods will get while humans wave their hands in self-importance.

No way, I like my religion humble, simple, and rustic.

[Eran]

Which leads to some Council of Nicea for Wicca, which leads to Popes and Heresy, and popular opinion deciding what scraps of worship the Gods will get while humans wave their hands in self-importance.
We already have that - we are constantly reminded that how the "majority" defines Wicca is the definition we all should be using. :lol:

Frankly, I'm not conerned about Pagan popes or heresies. Until Pagans capture enough temporal power to put people into prison, cut of their hands, involve in exteme torture, and legally carry out executions, I don't think any comparison to the Inquisition or to church councils is anything more than empty rhetoric.

[Ben Gruagach]

We already have that - we are constantly reminded that how the "majority" defines Wicca is the definition we all should be using. :lol:

I find that really funny. How does it makes sense that the "majority definition" of Wicca as distinct from witchcraft is the result of some conspiracy when the major factions stating that Wicca is not just a synonym for Witch are:

- vocal Gardnerian, Alexandrian, and other British Traditional Wiccans.
- Witches who state that they are definitely not Wiccans, such as the people who publish "The Wytches' Standard" (http://www.freewebs.com/twrn/officialmagazine.htm) (a very interesting occasional publication from the UK) or any of the many traditional witchcraft individuals and groups (like this one (http://www.shadowdrake.com/HSDwitchFAQ.html)) which are around.

It's absolutely amazing that the majority definition group would consist of not only Gardnerian and Alexandrian initiates but also those who are self-acknowledged as outside the Gardnerian and Alexandrian realm altogether. There must be some really powerful cohesive magick at work to bring these disparate factions together to produce this consistent majority definition.

Or maybe it's something other than a conspiracy devoted to discrediting the idea that Wicca is a mere synonym for Witch. Perhaps the majority definition is so widely accepted because it makes the most sense.

One other thing I've been wondering -- why would a modern writer who is producing work in modern English choose to confuse their audience by peppering things with archaic words when the modern equivalents are perfectly acceptable and clear to the audience? If you want to use archaic language like wicca in its original context, why isn't the rest of the sentence also in archaic English? It just seems to confuse things more than anything.

[Eran]

Ben, let's move the discussion of "wicca" vs "witch" into the wicca vs witchcraft thread, and leave this thread to its intended topic. Please repost there any points you wish to make, and I'll be glad to respond to them! You might want to start by showing where I used the word "conspiracy", and explaining why a careful and thorough presentation of historically accurate data is more confusing than is a misrepresentation of someone else's position.

[RainInanna]

That would be most appreciated, if possible, thank you.

[Eran]

Perhaps then the focus should not be on Wicca becoming more cohesive in an effort to cause change, but in asking how specific covens and groups create change in their own communities?
A very good observation. I think small groups can be very effective, and can bring about enormous change. Small groups can be more focused, more dedicated to specific purposes. They also are, in some ways, more vulnerable to the predations of destructive individuals - their small size is both their strength and their weakness. But they also have the added advantage that, like individual differentiated cells within a single living body, the loss of one does not necessarily do irreparable harm to the whole.

Perhaps that was my error all along, Christians have the advantage of being the majority and very public, but it is still the churches and groups who make a difference, not the whole religion at once.
I wouldn't call this an "error". I think all of us have a streak of idealism which fantasizes fondly about what a modern world under Pagan influence might be like. (Read Gore Vidal's novel Julian for the hearbreaking story of Rome's last Pagan emperor, whose assassination ended the chance for a Pagan modern world).

But you're right, it is specific denominations, or, even more, individual churches, that make a difference. That is probably a more productive model.

The nice thing about CoG is that it works very much under this model. It is a loose confederation of individual Covens. I am not convinced that CoG has made any difference in the world as a whole. But it has helped the religion(s) to survive, and that provides indirect support to individual Covens - and those Covens, in turn, might well change the World in very real ways.

[KeaErisdottir]

Perhaps then the focus should not be on Wicca becoming more cohesive in an effort to cause change, but in asking how specific covens and groups create change in their own communities?

Why do they have to? Isn't simply 'being' what they are enough? This mission-based theology is what got the Christians into the mess that they are in--why do witches/pagans/wiccans need to emulate it?


Perhaps that was my error all along, Christians have the advantage of being the majority and very public, but it is still the churches and groups who make a difference, not the whole religion at once.Yet I am willing to bet that when Christianity was functioning in the coven-sized units of its humble beginnings, that they were far more effective than the model of the megachurches who denied access to God unless you went through the preachers and priests. Any time you move away from the empowerment of the individual in favor of mass religion, you move toward religious tyranny and marginalizing individual worth--two of the greatest crimes commited by big churches.

Small groups make a difference by doing what they can. It will not be the types of things that Christians do, but there is nothing that says that a coven couldn't participate in a community drive by some other, and even Christian, organization, make their offering humbly and quietly, and leave no one the wiser. I have a student who is learning to knit, because he thinks that charity knitting for infants, sick kids, and cancer patients is a beautiful way to make a difference. That's at an individual level.

"The Star Thrower" is a beautiful story that makes this same counterpoint.

[SoulFire]

As for terms like NeoWicca and Traditional Wicca, the first is redudnant, all Wicca is New (what Neo means.) Traditional Wicca is a little confusing since there are many traditions of Wicca but it should just be referred to as Gardernarian Wicca.


A) NeoWicca is clearly a different form of Wicca.

B) Traditional Wicca should not be all lumped together under the Gardnerian banner, because not all Traditional Wicca groups are Gardnerian or even BTW. This is where people who are confused should be accpeting some personal responsibility to learn enough to know what comprises Trad Wicca and cease the spread of misinformed stereotypes that further ignorance about them.



It's funny, because most of the people who know anyting at all about Wicca have met the flakes who say Wicca is whatever you want it to be. Since I don't practice flake-based Wicca, I have to speak to what I do practice, which is one of the many forms of Traditional Wicca.



Which leads to some Council of Nicea for Wicca, which leads to Popes and Heresy, and popular opinion deciding what scraps of worship the Gods will get while humans wave their hands in self-importance.

No way, I like my religion humble, simple, and rustic.

KeaErisdottir is right; I know some Feries (myself included) who would not like being lumped under "Gardnerian" much less "Wicca". For starters, Feri/Vicia has no Rede--which defines Wicca--and no Threefold Law. (I realize this is not a discussion of Feri or Vicia, I use it only as a point of reference because I am a Feri Witch.) We are not dependent on Gardner for our thealogy, rituals, lineage, and social structure. We have our own beliefs and rituals, thank you. Cochrane Witches are also not Gardnerian. This is the problem: It seems some people think only Gardnerians are "Traditional". Baloney!

[Eran]

This is the problem: It seems some people think only Gardnerians are "Traditional". Baloney!
As a Traditionalist Witch who is a Gardnerian, I agree with you completely. Let me limit the following to a discussion of Wicca; There are many forms of Traditional Wicca. And you're quite right, they do not all follow the Gardnerian form, nor are they all descended from Gardner.

These terms do mean something, and Traditionalist groups are very different from Eclectic ones. There also are a plethora of groups and styles which have developed more recently (say, since the 1960's or later). If people find the term "Neo Wicca" offensive, perhaps another term can be found. These groups are very different (in theology, ritual, myth, and general outlook) from the Traditionalist Wiccan groups, whether Gardnerian-based or unrelated to Gardner.

I have heard people complain that they shouldn't be called "Neo Wicca" - they want to reserve the right to call themselves what they wish. That is entirely reasonable; but often those same people then voice unhappiness that Traditional Wiccans also desire the right to self-name. That attitude seems inconsistent to me, and possibly a bit hypocritical.

[Elderbush]

KeaErisdottir is right; I know some Feries (myself included) who would not like being lumped under "Gardnerian" much less "Wicca". For starters, Feri/Vicia has no Rede--which defines Wicca--and no Threefold Law. (I realize this is not a discussion of Feri or Vicia, I use it only as a point of reference because I am a Feri Witch.) We are not dependent on Gardner for our thealogy, rituals, lineage, and social structure. We have our own beliefs and rituals, thank you. Cochrane Witches are also not Gardnerian. This is the problem: It seems some people think only Gardnerians are "Traditional". Baloney!

I would think that anyone with a tradition is traditional. :)

[RainInanna]

This mission-based theology is what got the Christians into the mess that they are in

How so?

Why wouldn't Wiccan groups want to show that Wicca includes ideas of community service and charity? Wouldn't that be an excellent way to bring it out and introduce it to people in a positive way?

[Lunacie]

KeaErisdottir is right; I know some Feries (myself included) who would not like being lumped under "Gardnerian" much less "Wicca". For starters, Feri/Vicia has no Rede--which defines Wicca--and no Threefold Law. (I realize this is not a discussion of Feri or Vicia, I use it only as a point of reference because I am a Feri Witch.) We are not dependent on Gardner for our thealogy, rituals, lineage, and social structure. We have our own beliefs and rituals, thank you. Cochrane Witches are also not Gardnerian. This is the problem: It seems some people think only Gardnerians are "Traditional". Baloney!

I'm not sure where people got the idea that the Rede somehow defines Wicca. The Rede is a rather recent addition - at least for someone who is over 50 or who has studied the history of Wicca, although for someone who is under 30 and has not done that study it probably looks like dogma. The trouble with using the Rede as a defining point is that unless one has studied the history and understands why the Rede poem was written one tends to take it entirely out of context, and furthermore expects all Wiccans to live by that fictitous meaning.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm not sure where people got the idea that the Rede somehow defines Wicca. The Rede is a rather recent addition - at least for someone who is over 50 or who has studied the history of Wicca, although for someone who is under 30 and has not done that study it probably looks like dogma. The trouble with using the Rede as a defining point is that unless one has studied the history and understands why the Rede poem was written one tends to take it entirely out of context, and furthermore expects all Wiccans to live by that fictitous meaning.

The Rede as defining Wicca thing is really a perfect illustration of basic human nature -- it seems natural for those who do make the Rede to be a central part of their Wicca to assume that therefore it has to be that way for everyone else.

It doesn't make it right of course but is seems to happen a lot. (And not just with the Rede either...)

[SoulFire]

I'm not sure where people got the idea that the Rede somehow defines Wicca. The Rede is a rather recent addition - at least for someone who is over 50 or who has studied the history of Wicca, although for someone who is under 30 and has not done that study it probably looks like dogma. The trouble with using the Rede as a defining point is that unless one has studied the history and understands why the Rede poem was written one tends to take it entirely out of context, and furthermore expects all Wiccans to live by that fictitous meaning.

Nevertheless, it is often stated as the prime directive of Wicca or religious Witchcraft. Besides, I'm not talking about the definition of the Rede (which is a whole nother debate), only that it is espoused by a lot of Wiccan as their #1 law.

P.S. I have studied the Rede, it's history, etc. It's presumptuous to assume that I haven't. I also feel that it is largely misunderstood. That doesn't change my opinion, however, that it is often used as a defining point of Wicca.

[Elderbush]

We've had threads here and I've seen them elsewhere with Wiccans emphatically denying that it must be a core belief of Wicca because it is not their core belief. I have an issue with your using the word "law" too because most people feel that it is more of a suggestion.

Personally, I feel, from experience that I get back what I put out there but I believed that even when I belonged to another religion and no religion at all. This would make part of a very good thread, I think.

[SoulFire]

Whatever! Good Lord!!! I did put "law" in quotations because many Wiccan do frame it like that! I did not say that all Wiccan do. Good grief, people! This is what I had an "issue" with: "Traditional Wicca is a little confusing since there are many traditions of Wicca but it should just be referred to as Gardernarian Wicca", and that is what I was addressing, and I will not apologize for it. It is JUST as much a generalization. My point--and I do have one, as Ellen Degeneris says--is that one does not have to be Gardnerian to be a Traditionalist.

[Elderbush]

LOL I guess you should know that if you bring up that with 5 Wiccans you will get 5 different responses.

[SoulFire]

As a Traditionalist Witch who is a Gardnerian, I agree with you completely. Let me limit the following to a discussion of Wicca; There are many forms of Traditional Wicca. And you're quite right, they do not all follow the Gardnerian form, nor are they all descended from Gardner.

These terms do mean something, and Traditionalist groups are very different from Eclectic ones. There also are a plethora of groups and styles which have developed more recently (say, since the 1960's or later). If people find the term "Neo Wicca" offensive, perhaps another term can be found. These groups are very different (in theology, ritual, myth, and general outlook) from the Traditionalist Wiccan groups, whether Gardnerian-based or unrelated to Gardner.

I have heard people complain that they shouldn't be called "Neo Wicca" - they want to reserve the right to call themselves what they wish. That is entirely reasonable; but often those same people then voice unhappiness that Traditional Wiccans also desire the right to self-name. That attitude seems inconsistent to me, and possibly a bit hypocritical.

However, to play devil's advocate, there are also many forms of traditional or folk Witchcraft. Simply because one is not a Gardnerian Wicca does not mean that "Neo-Wicca" or "eclectic" should be applied to everyone else necessarily either. They also have the right to self-name.

[Twinkle]

If you're not practicing Wicca, then don't call yourself a Wiccan. If you haven't been initiated, or understand the mysteries, then you're not Wiccan.

Call yourself whatever you like....but Wicca is an iniatory Mystery Religion.

You may be practicing something Wiccaesque...but to call yourself a Wiccan when you have no idea what that is....then it's an insult.

And by you....I mean the general you....no one specific.



And for the last time....the Wicca Rede is not the Ten Commandments of Wicca.

It's advice...not a law.

[Elderbush]

I have always felt that if a group is resentful of others using a term that has become over 60 or so years an umbrella term as Wicca has, then they really should rename themselves in order to disassociate themselves. Trying to make other people rename their religion because you don't like them using "your" term seems rather fruitless, especially since it isn't defendable in a court of law.

The free dictionary:
fruit·less (frtls)
adj.
1. Producing no fruit.
2. Unproductive of success

[Twinkle]

So the initiated Gardnerian Wicca has to listen to the 14 year old that thinks she can orb call herself a Wiccan?

Dandy.

[SoulFire]

And for the last time....the Wicca Rede is not the Ten Commandments of Wicca.

It's advice...not a law.

You're preaching to the "choir".

[Elderbush]

If you're not practicing Wicca, then don't call yourself a Wiccan. If you haven't been initiated, or understand the mysteries, then you're not Wiccan.

Call yourself whatever you like....but Wicca is an iniatory Mystery Religion.

You may be practicing something Wiccaesque...but to call yourself a Wiccan when you have no idea what that is....then it's an insult.


That is your opinion.

Here's mine.

Hey everyone! If you think that you are Wiccan or that your tradition is Wiccan, and you feel that you are practicing Wicca, please feel free to use the term! It isn't copyrighted and no one has the right to tell you that you aren't Wiccan. Some people define the word very narrowly. You don't have to listen to them or accept their definition. They really have no power except to exclude you from their circle and unless you are of their tradition, it is most likely they are going to do that anyway.

Now granted there are people out there who don't include much of the concepts that are core to Wicca. You really should examine your beliefs and practices and if they don't resemble Wicca much, then you should talk to Wiccans of more than one tradition) and consider if there isn't a more appropriate term.

[Elderbush]

So the initiated Gardnerian Wicca has to listen to the 14 year old that thinks she can orb call herself a Wiccan?

Dandy.

So is the Gardnerian Wiccan going to take the 14 year old (and her parents) to court to get her to stop using the term Wiccan to discribe herself?

.

[Lunacie]

Nevertheless, it is often stated as the prime directive of Wicca or religious Witchcraft. Besides, I'm not talking about the definition of the Rede (which is a whole nother debate), only that it is espoused by a lot of Wiccan as their #1 law.

P.S. I have studied the Rede, it's history, etc. It's presumptuous to assume that I haven't. I also feel that it is largely misunderstood. That doesn't change my opinion, however, that it is often used as a defining point of Wicca.

I was trying to make the point that just because a large number of "so-called" Wiccans claim that the Rede is their "#1 law" that doesn't make it such for those who understand what being Wiccan originally meant. And furthermore, that the great multitude who seem to be using it as their "prime directive" generally don't understand what it really means: i.e. what it orginally meant.

It shouldn't be used as a defining point of Wicca - in my opinion.

You wrote that "Feri/Vicia has no Rede--which defines Wicca--". I took that to mean that you advocate that the Rede actually defines Wicca. If I misunderstood that, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that certainly looks like what you're saying.

[Lolair]

So the initiated Gardnerian Wicca has to listen to the 14 year old that thinks she can orb call herself a Wiccan?
I have always felt that if a group is resentful of others using a term that has become over 60 or so years an umbrella term as Wicca has, then they really should rename themselves in order to disassociate themselves. Trying to make other people rename their religion because you don't like them using "your" term seems rather fruitless, especially since it isn't defendable in a court of law.
The last couple pages of this thread can be considered irrelevant as those who do not like being associated with the "umbrella" term of Wicca, popularized (solitary) Wicca, and eclectic Wicca have already created a name to differentiate themselves - British Traditional Wicca (http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/).

Traditions of Wicca also created names and definitions to differentiate themselves from other witchcraft traditions. From what I have seen it is all defined and segregated pretty well already. Unfortunately all of this separation has caused a lot of "holier than thou" syndromes and in-fights within Wicca, instead of bringing them together as a community. It's like Christianity all over again, the Protestants and Catholics in the middle of a cat fight instead of simply worshipping the same God with their own set of traditions and finding common ground. I've found this true of many witches and wiccans alike: that if we were all given report cards in our covens or groups they would probably say "does not play well with others."

Defining what you believe and what practices your tradition follows are a great way of letting yourself know where you stand in your own theology - it is however not an excuse to tell others they are less than you because they do not share the same beliefs and practices.

[SoulFire]

I was trying to make the point that just because a large number of "so-called" Wiccans claim that the Rede is their "#1 law" that doesn't make it such for those who understand what being Wiccan originally meant. And furthermore, that the great multitude who seem to be using it as their "prime directive" generally don't understand what it really means: i.e. what it orginally meant.

It shouldn't be used as a defining point of Wicca - in my opinion.

It shouldn't be used as a defining point because so many misunderstand it? That doesn't make sense to me personally.


You wrote that "Feri/Vicia has no Rede--which defines Wicca--". I took that to mean that you advocate that the Rede actually defines Wicca. If I misunderstood that, I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but that certainly looks like what you're saying.

It seems to be a guiding tenet of Gardnerian Wicca, though I don't think it's a "law". But it is often used to describe Wicca. Just because the "great multitude" may not understand what it really means doesn't change that. Just my 2 cents. YMMV.

[Carla O'Harris]

So the initiated Gardnerian Wicca has to listen to the 14 year old that thinks she can orb call herself a Wiccan?

Dandy.

Yah, actually.

Just as the monk who has deeply gone into the scriptures and prayers of Christianity for sixty years has to listen to the neophyte who barely has any familiarity at all call themselves a Christian.

There are many different levels to religion.

Frankly, I am sick and tired of bookstore and teen wiccans being slagged on. It's incredibly disrespectful. Sure there are flakes and bombasts. But someone can pick up a book and it can inspire something incredibly powerful, and I don't care what anyone says, that can function as an initiation, and anyone who denies that is simply declaring that books are not their particular in-path into the mysteries, but they can be for some people.

To me, this all amounts to elitism.

[Carla O'Harris]

It seems to be a guiding tenet of Gardnerian Wicca, though I don't think it's a "law". But it is often used to describe Wicca.

How about this as a rede :


1. You damn well better f.c.ing work on yourself. There's no excuse for projecting stuff that needs to be worked on on the inside onto the outside.
2.There are no laws, because the universe twists and turns, but you damn well better not use this as an excuse to get ethically lazy and lessen your moral rigor. In other words, while love works beyond laws, this is a discipline and not an excuse.
3. You should really try damn hard to cause the least amount of harm you possibly can, and if, as a judgement call, where all of the above has been fulfilled, you feel you have to participate in some harm, say, to prevent a greater harm, you still damn well better be willing to take responsibility for it.

Just a concept. Expressed a little more rough n' ready than the usual rede, but perhaps might get the point across.

[Lunacie]

It shouldn't be used as a defining point because so many misunderstand it? That doesn't make sense to me personally.



It seems to be a guiding tenet of Gardnerian Wicca, though I don't think it's a "law". But it is often used to describe Wicca. Just because the "great multitude" may not understand what it really means doesn't change that. Just my 2 cents. YMMV.


Lets see.... we should accept a misunderstood concept as actual dogma of the religion? Why on earth would we do that?

Yes, it's a guiding tenet that we should be responsible in using magic as in all things we do, but it isn't the "be-all and end-all" of Wicca. Whenever the subject comes up I do my best to correct the misinformation.

[SoulFire]

Lets see.... we should accept a misunderstood concept as actual dogma of the religion? Why on earth would we do that?

Yes, it's a guiding tenet that we should be responsible in using magic as in all things we do, but it isn't the "be-all and end-all" of Wicca. Whenever the subject comes up I do my best to correct the misinformation.

I think working to change people's misperceptions and misunderstandings is probably the correct thing to do, rather than dismissing it. So kudos.

:viking:

[SoulFire]

So the initiated Gardnerian Wicca has to listen to the 14 year old that thinks she can orb call herself a Wiccan?

Dandy.

It is rather difficult to get upset over a 14-year-old who thinks she can orb calling herself "Wiccan". ;) I'd be more concerned about an adult thinking and calling themselves that.

[Ben Gruagach]

[The Rede] ... seems to be a guiding tenet of Gardnerian Wicca, though I don't think it's a "law". But it is often used to describe Wicca. Just because the "great multitude" may not understand what it really means doesn't change that. Just my 2 cents. YMMV.

While the Rede concept was certainly present within Gardnerian Wicca right from the start (it's in Gardner's "Witchcraft Today" after all,) it doesn't seem to have moved into the spotlight until Doreen Valiente gave her now-famous speech in 1964 (http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede3.shtml). Thanks to Doreen, the poetic eight-word statement "An it harm none, do what you will" jumped into importance that it never had before.

(I expect you already knew this stuff SF, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to mention it for the benefit of newcomers who might be reading this thread.)

Anyways, there were certainly some Gardnerian Wiccans who embraced the Rede at this point as being central to their philosophy but it was definitely not universal. And just like not even all Gardnerians embraced the Rede as definitive or even all that important, there are other Wiccans (denominational as well as solitary/eclectic) who might or might not embrace it.

So while the Rede is certainly commonly cited as central by Wiccans it's not true for all Wiccans, Gardnerian or not.

[Ben Gruagach]

It is rather difficult to get upset over a 14-year-old who thinks she can orb calling herself "Wiccan". ;) I'd be more concerned about an adult thinking and calling themselves that.

Personally, I'm much more concerned about the adults who present themselves as being the official authorities on Wicca, where their word is law to be automatically accepted, who attempt to dictate to every other Wiccan out there.

I've seen it humourously referred to as "High Priest/ess Disease" and in my humble opinion it is much more destructive than 14 year olds with an active imagination.

[SoulFire]

While the Rede concept was certainly present within Gardnerian Wicca right from the start (it's in Gardner's "Witchcraft Today" after all,) it doesn't seem to have moved into the spotlight until Doreen Valiente gave her now-famous speech in 1964 (http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede3.shtml). Thanks to Doreen, the poetic eight-word statement "An it harm none, do what you will" jumped into importance that it never had before.

(I expect you already knew this stuff SF, but I couldn't pass up the opportunity to mention it for the benefit of newcomers who might be reading this thread.)

Anyways, there were certainly some Gardnerian Wiccans who embraced the Rede at this point as being central to their philosophy but it was definitely not universal. And just like not even all Gardnerians embraced the Rede as definitive or even all that important, there are other Wiccans (denominational as well as solitary/eclectic) who might or might not embrace it.

So while the Rede is certainly commonly cited as central by Wiccans it's not true for all Wiccans, Gardnerian or not.

Thank you, Ben, for your post.

Skol!

:viking:

[SoulFire]

Personally, I'm much more concerned about the adults who present themselves as being the official authorities on Wicca, where their word is law to be automatically accepted, who attempt to dictate to every other Wiccan out there.

I've seen it humourously referred to as "High Priest/ess Disease" and in my humble opinion it is much more destructive than 14 year olds with an active imagination.

Oh, yes, I agree with you there, having known a few people like. I too have heard it called "HPs disease".

B*B,
SF

[Eran]

However, to play devil's advocate, there are also many forms of traditional or folk Witchcraft. Simply because one is not a Gardnerian Wicca does not mean that "Neo-Wicca" or "eclectic" should be applied to everyone else necessarily either. They also have the right to self-name.
I quite agree, and I will call them what they wish to be called. That doesn't mean I'll alter my private definitions, nor be shy about presenting my understanding of things, my research, or my arguments. But if someone who is respectful asks for respect, I will gladly give it, whether I agree with them or not.

[~Belladonna~]

I think the problem comes from Wicca being the no1 Pagan religion that most Pagans find first and often seem to stick with. Many people look no further, read a few books on Wicca and make of it what they will. I think it's fine if you've looked into many Pagan religions first and then decided Wicca is for you, but as for just jumping in head first and stating your Wiccan because it's the most popular is just stupid and I can't blame people for calling those people fluffy.

[Stang]

Recent discussions have suggested some feel Wicca is too "scattered" and "undefined" to be meaningful. Certainly it is still considered by many to be a fairly new religion with room to grow. The question is, should and can we come to some agreement as to what Wicca is? How do we avoid elitism and dictating strict rules, while still working towards a more cohesive idea of what Wicca is? Do we need to, or should we continue to let it become so eclectic as to be considered unrecognizable by many? Is there a middle ground between too undefined and too rigid? How do we find it?
.............


I don't think that a middle ground can exist, because different people have different ideas about where it is or should be. As the various comments in this thread demonstrate.

Gardner was the one who revived the use of the word "Wica", although he preferred to just call himself a witch. I believe the Gardnerians and Alexandrians first began calling themselves Wiccans in the seventies, to distance themselves from all the the traditional, hereditary and fam-trad groups that began to claim a pre-Gardnerian lineage once they found out that there were no local Gardnerian or Alexandrian group for them to join. But Gardnerians and Alexandrians usually exclude from the definition of "Wiccan" anyone who hasn't been initiated into one of their covens. In fact, most Gardnerians that I've talked to say that only Gardnerians are Wiccans.

I assume you'd find that definition to be unfair and overly narrow. So, on what basis do you tell some 14 year old who's just read a few websites and decided to call themselves a Wiccan that you're entitled to use that label but they aren't? If your basis for judgement is whether people understand and have internalized certain concepts that you see as being crucial to the Wiccan experience, I can understand where you're coming from, and why you think it matters. But if you don't think that the Gardnerians have a right to tell you you're not really Wiccan, why should you exclude anyone else from using the term? Or why use it at all? Wouldn't it be simpler just to call yourself something else? There are a number of Pagan authors who just call themselves Pagans or witches, not Wiccans. That seems like a good way to avoid a pointless argument.

And, to address someone else's comment about Robert Cochrane, he never called himself a Wiccan. In fact, he died before it was commonly used, and before people were spelling it "Wicca" instead of "Wica". Although some people claim that Cochrane is the person who invented the word Gardnerian, in order to distinguish Gardner's followers from "real" witches like Cochrane himself. So the argument about definitions is an old one, but I doubt it will ever be resolved.

Maybe it's better to just worry about what standards you want to have for your own group, and let the rest of the world take care of itself. If I go to a festival and meet new people, it doesn't matter to me what they call themselves. I'll socialize with them, but I'm not going to discuss any oathbound material with them, and won't do any working other than a public circle with them, because they aren't part of my group. And that remains the case regardless of whether they choose to call themselves Wiccans, witches or Pagans. I think that the reason some people get irked with fluffy bunnies is because a small percentage of them think that describing themselves of Wiccans, British Traditional Witches or whatever entitles them to access private rituals and training manuals. But as long as they don't harbour that misconception, let them call themselves what they want. You don't have to agree with how they describe themselves. But be aware that there are those who wouldn't consider you to be a Wiccan. Fair enough, I think.