Wicca - Should Be Initionary Based?

[DracoJesi]

I was on another forum where someone said that Wicca is initionary based religions, to which I corrected them saying that Wicca is not an initionary based religion, however some traditional variations of it are.

Franky those who think you must be able to cite your lineage or be initioned by a Coven annoy me.

I myself, did a self Inition, but they weren't referring to that.

One of them blatantly said, "If people aren't initiated, how will they now what to do and which god to worship.

My response was that is you don't have the drive to study for yourself, then you're not serious about it, and that certain gods/goddesses will vary depending on practitioner/tradition even though core elements should be the same.

I also mentioned that you don't have to be in a Coven to learn from other practitioners.

I think it's obvious where I stand, where do you?

[EvieLee]

I would think that if you're drawn to a tradition that requires initiation to access certain knowledge, and you want that knowledge, then you follow the rules and get initiated. Otherwise, find a suitable tradition that doesn't.

[Lunacie]

I was on another forum where someone said that Wicca is initionary based religions, to which I corrected them saying that Wicca is not an initionary based religion, however some traditional variations of it are.

Franky those who think you must be able to cite your lineage or be initioned by a Coven annoy me.

I myself, did a self Inition, but they weren't referring to that.

One of them blatantly said, "If people aren't initiated, how will they now what to do and which god to worship.

My response was that is you don't have the drive to study for yourself, then you're not serious about it, and that certain gods/goddesses will vary depending on practitioner/tradition even though core elements should be the same.

I also mentioned that you don't have to be in a Coven to learn from other practitioners.

I think it's obvious where I stand, where do you?

Just as Catholics (for example) have certain traditions and dogma that make Catholicism unique among all the Christian variations, Wicca also has it's own traditions and dogma that make it unique in it's own way.

Those who practice Wicca can indeed worship and honor any gods they are called by, but Wicca as a religion honors two specific dieties among the many. So what you do at your own personal altar may be different than what you do when you work with a coven (or circle or grove).

That said, I don't think you have to be initiated into and belong to a coven to call yourself Wicca, but you aren't getting the whole experience. What you are getting as a spiritual experience is still very good, and all that some practicioners may want, it's just that there is more available for those who choose to join a Tradition.

Of course, thanks to the internet, almost all of that information can be found online these days (including the specific dieties that are honored in Wicca) but sometimes it's easier to learn the "mysteries" within yourself with someone to guide you.

[Artiste-LiLi]

I'm not Wiccan; but, I know many who are and I shall discuss this with them. I will especially discuss this with my friend who is a High Priest in the Wiccan faith. I always thought, from discussions with my friends and from my reading, that Wicca is a faith into which one is initiated. I suppose it depends upon who you are talking to, what their path is, what their connections are, etc. I know that there are Wiccans who do not believe that one can "self-dedicate"; yet others feel this is just fine for you to perform a self-dedication ritual. I think there are many very traditional branches of Wicca that believe that you can not be Wiccan without being initiated into a specific path/coven/grove/circle. I have read that there are those who believe that you can not be a solitary practitioner and be Wiccan; others think you can not be a part of a group and be Wiccan. The diversity is amazing. And that is part of the problem with Wicca being recognised by many as a "real" religion.

From Wikipedia: (which I use "with a grain of salt" as I have found incorrect things there...but it is quick and easy)

"Wicca is a nature-based religion found in various countries throughout the world. It was first popularised in 1954 by Gerald Gardner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Gardner), a retired British (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom) civil servant.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#_note-WitchcraftToday) He claimed that the religion, of which he was an initiate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiation), was a modern survival of an old witchcraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft) religion, which had existed in secret for hundreds of years, originating in the pre-Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) Paganism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paganism) of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#_note-WitchcraftToday) Wicca is thus sometimes referred to as the "Old Religion".[attribution needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words)] The veracity of Gardner's claims cannot be independently proven, and it is thought that Wiccan theology began to be compiled no earlier than the 1920s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1920s).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#_note-WiccanRoots)
Various related Wiccan traditions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditions) have since evolved or been adapted from the form established by Gardner, which came to be called Gardnerian Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gardnerian_Wicca). These other traditions of Wicca each have distinctive beliefs, rituals, and practices. Many traditions of Wicca remain secretive and require that members be initiated. There is also a movement of Eclectic Wiccans who do not believe that any doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine) or traditional initiation is necessary in order to practice Wicca.
Core concepts

Because there is no centralised organisation in Wicca, and no single "orthodoxy", the beliefs and practices of Wiccans can vary substantially, both between individuals and between traditions. Typically, the main religious principles, ethics and ritual structures are shared, since they are key elements of traditional teachings and published works on the subject. In traditional forms of Wicca a private journal, history or core religious text known as a Book of Shadows (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Shadows) is kept by practitioners, similar to a grimoire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grimoire), whose contents are kept secret from anyone but the members of the lineage concerned (i.e. those initiating and initiated by a particular coven). However, several proposed versions of the Book have been published. Sections of these published versions, such as the Wiccan Rede (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiccan_Rede) and the Charge of the Goddess (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_of_the_Goddess), as well as other published writings about Wicca, have been adopted by non-initiates who wished to practice the religion.

Lineaged and Eclectic Wicca

As practised by Gerald Gardner and his followers, Wicca was and is a secretive and exclusive society of religious witchcraft, with entry to the society only gained through initiation by another Wiccan. However since the 1960s other, non-initiated people have adopted the term "Wicca" to describe their beliefs and practices, which vary from those of traditional, lineaged Wicca to a greater or lesser extent. Wiccans without a lineage to Gardner can be considered a subset of the Eclectic Wiccans, "who are liberal in their practices, following the technique of using anything that works no matter where it came from."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#_note-BonewitsEssentialGuideWitchcraftWicca) Eclectic Wiccans now significantly outnumber lineaged Wiccans, and their beliefs and practices tend to be much more varied.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca#_note-NWCFAQ)
In the Eclectic Wiccan movement there is much more variation in religious beliefs, and secrecy and organisational structure play a less important role. Generally, Eclectic Wiccans will adopt similar ritual structures and ethical principles to Traditional Wiccans. A few Eclectic Wiccans neither consider themselves witches nor practice magic."

Based upon this information, I would say that if you wish to practice a "Traditional" form of Wicca.....yes, you must be initiated. If, however, you wish to practice an eclectic form of Wicca..then no you don't.

[Freyaschild]

I agree with you. I too am self -initiated, and feel that counts every bit as much as a traditional initiation. I think their comments are related to the old argument of solitaires vs traditionalists.

I would agree with their comments that Wicca is initiatory based if they included everyone under that umbrella.

[Greybird]

Eh, my gods haven't complained yet. Beyond that, the opinions don't matter much.

[aluokaloo]

it's up to the individual pracctitioner, if they want to find a good steady coven, then that's for them, if they want soliatry or something in between that's up to them,

[Ben Gruagach]

Part of the problem that has always been at the core of this perennial argument is the fact that initiation has a number of different meanings. One of those meanings is a formal acceptance into an established group. Another meaning is to have a significant experience of connection with the Divine in some form. There seem to be a lot of people who use the term initiation to imply that if you get the first kind of initiation that you automatically get the second kind with it. This is not the case at all and was explained pretty succinctly by Dion Fortune in her book "The Training and Work of an Initiate." (Dion Fortune, while not a witch, was one of the major influences on Gerald Gardner and early Wiccans such as Doreen Valiente.)

Initiation into an existing group really just makes you a member of that group and privy to whatever secrets they might choose to keep such as the specific names of the God and Goddess they worship, how they do specific things, etc. The real question is whether mundane initiation is required to make one a Wiccan, or is it the greater initiation, the one where you come in contact with the Divine in some form, what really counts? If it is the greater initiation that is the vital component then there are definitely Wiccans who have been marked by the Divine as Wiccan without ever having encountered a coven of any sort.

If we consider "real" Wiccans to be those with lineage, with a connection through mundane initiations to a Wiccan group, then we still have major problems as it would require a connection to Gerald Gardner, as he was the founder of Wicca. This would put groups such as Alexandrians in jeopardy as Alex's authority to start up a Gardnerian offshoot was rather questionable. And there are many other established Wiccan sects which also have very tenuous lineage to Gardner through verifiable initiations so that puts their status as Wiccan in jeopardy as well.

I've been told by quite a few Wiccans in UK that the whole emphasis on lineage and "puppy papers" (provable evidence of lineage) is an American thing and not really as much of a concern for them. This makes me question whether the emphasis on lineage to Gardner is really important then for a sect to be considered Wiccan. And if that is the case it leaves some gaping holes in the claim that to be Wiccan you must be formally initiated by an initiated Wiccan...

Personally, I consider people and groups to be Wiccan if they have the following core practices:

1. Casting a circle with some sort of recognition of the four quarters.
2. A balanced pair of a God and a Goddess (regardless what your philosophy is about Them and Their nature, number, etc.)
3. Seasonal festivals or sabbats (from four to eight) based roughly on Celtic models.
4. Doing magick in some form (if only through casting the circle.)
5. Recognizing sacred fertility in some form (often through the use of the Great Rite either through enactment of a Hieros Gamos or through other symbolism.)

I also see autonomy as inherent to Wicca. There is no central authority for all Wiccans; no Wiccan Pope or Wiccan Holy Bible that all must follow. That means individual groups are free to set up whatever authority structures they want for themselves but their authority does not apply to outsiders. It also means solitaries can definitely be Wiccans.

While it is true that this set of criteria could cover non-Wiccan groups as well it makes sense that only those who actually self-identify as Wiccan are meant to be covered.

Personally, my Wiccan philosophy and practice is also guided by the Principles of Wiccan Belief, the Wiccan Rede ("An it harm none, do what you will"), and the Threefold Return concept (which I interpret as a rewording of the idea that everything is connected and our decisions will always have consequences).

I've definitely heard the claim before that Wicca is an initiatory religion but without a lot of explanations what that is supposed to mean, and some sort of rationalization to refute the problems I've mentioned, it's a rather difficult proposition to accept as true.

[Ben Gruagach]

Wicca is an oathbound, initiatory based religion. NeoWicca or non-traditional Wicca, however is not but it's considered more Wiccan-inspired than actual Wicca. To be a Wiccan, one must be initiated by a lineaged coven. Just as one must be initiated to be a Freemason or one must undergo the holy sacraments to be a Catholic. Self-initiation is really an oxymoron because what exactly are you initiating yourself into?

When you are initiated you learn the inner circle teachings and the mysteries of Wicca which are the heart and core of the religion. You cannot learn them outside of the coven as they are held by oath and available only to those who have been initiated. Without the mysteries, it really isn't Wicca. I know many people are not going to agree with this, but frankly, that's just how it is.

So I really really want to know:

What constitutes a valid lineage? Why?

How can it be true that you can't touch the Wiccan mysteries when Wiccans such as Vivianne Crowley (p. 53 of "Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age") state that many people who come to covens have already had the necessary Divine and elemental contacts and are thus 'naturals' and essentially already initiates? It's also been said before by Wiccan initiates like Janet Farrar that most if not all of the Wiccan secrets are already published. How can it be impossible for someone to learn the secrets then if they're available in print already?

I have absolutely no problem with accepting that to be a Gardnerian Wiccan a person must follow Gardnerian Wiccan procedure to become part of that group. I do have a problem with assumptions that non-Gardnerians must follow Gardnerian rules to be Wiccan.

[Fiamma]

3. Seasonal festivals or sabbats (from four to eight) based roughly on Celtic models.


Celtic models? Why do you say this? Only four of the days in the Wheel of the Year are from Celtic cultures....Imbolc, Beltane, Lughnassagh and Samhain (And two of those wern't even days back in the old times, but months)...Yule and maybe Midummer were Norse, Ostara was Germanic (the Romans also observed the Spring Equinox as the new year) and none of the ancient European cultures observed the autumn equinox....and the Wiccan wheel of teh year has little to nothing to do with the celebrations from back in the day...so i'm confused as to why you specify "based roughly on Celtic models"???

[Twinkle]

This is what I believe:

Wicca is an Initiatory Mystery Religion. Anyone that is not initiated (imho) is not Wiccan.

There are many solitary practitioners that are Wiccan in their beliefs and practices, but they base what they know only on what is publicly available. This does not make you Wiccan. It makes your religious practice loosely based on the public Wicca.

A better term for those that are "Wicca based" would be Neopagan. Claiming to be Wiccan, when in fact that's not what you are, but only "what you want to be", is disrespectful and insulting to those that have studied, been initiated and understand the mysteries.

That's not to say that Neopagan practice loosely based on Wicca is a bad thing. It's just not Wiccan...so why call it that, unless someone so badly wants to associate with the term that it no longer matters what Wicca is.

Of course, if Wicca is anything you want it to be...then nothing that I posted matters.

[skilly-nilly]

Part of the problem that has always been at the core of this perennial argument is the fact that initiation has a number of different meanings. One of those meanings is a formal acceptance into an established group.

I agree with this definition.

Leaving aside the question of lineage, I think that 'initiation' means that a group of humans who are already a group accept someone as a new member of their group. Initiation is what the existing group does to the non-member to make hir a member.

So I don't think you can be a solitary member of an initiatory religion....who would be initiating you?

I don't think the Gods can initiate you either; Their group is 'Gods' and a human (IMO) can't join that group. I DO think that a human can self-dedicate by forming a link to the (or some or one) Gods without any involvement in a group, however lineaged. Unless you dedicate yourself to a group then dedication is always a direct God-to-person link.

But I don't think that 'initiation' and 'dedication' are interchangeable.

[Fiamma]

How can it be true that you can't touch the Wiccan mysteries when Wiccans such as Vivianne Crowley (p. 53 of "Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age") state that many people who come to covens have already had the necessary Divine and elemental contacts and are thus 'naturals' and essentially already initiates? It's also been said before by Wiccan initiates like Janet Farrar that most if not all of the Wiccan secrets are already published. How can it be impossible for someone to learn the secrets then if they're available in print already?


If these mysteries are published- no idea if this is true, don't really have any interest in reading about them, but assuming they are, you can go and read all you want about them. If you've not been trained in that tradition, you're taking them out of context first of all and second of all, you're reading a description of mechanics, which is no substitute for knowledge gained through firsthand experience.

A common, clichéd analogy...it's like a virgin reading about the experience of sex, or having it explained to them...you could explain the mechanics, or what it's like in your experience...but for all the explaination and description in the world, they can't really and fully understand what it's like til they've had sex themselves.

[Twinkle]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I have always understood that part of the initiation went hand in hand with understanding the Mysteries.

Is this a correct statement?

[Fiamma]

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I have always understood that part of the initiation went hand in hand with understanding the Mysteries.

Is this a correct statement?

that's how I've understood it based on what I've been told by a few Gardnerians...

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I've been thinking about this one for sometime now. In that regard after trying to look at it from many angles I find my military experience to be the best model for my comparison.

When one enters the military (Navy) they enter as either a designated striker or undesignated. Basically it means you've been given general book learning with some hands on practice (ie designated) or no training. Both are equal in pay, rank, prestige, benefits, etc. Yet in many ways they are like an acolyte in religion.

In Wicca it calls for a year and a day before beinging considered for 1st level initiation. In the military the person undergoes basic inductory training and acquires basic level knowledge of their skill set. Again uniform across the spectrum of the naval service. Yet that service is also like Wicca in that it has a core component defined from the original concept of Land based and surface based sailors. This could be identified with Gardernarian Wicca. Yet the evolution of Submarine forces and Air force capabilities have created sunsets based off changing concepts. These could be equated as Alerxanderian and Valentian Wicca.

All possess the same origination and core elements yet also contain elements unique to the subsequent changes. Yet for the changes of each sub group the core requirements and beliefs are the same enabling them to have a uniform understanding of each other while maintaining their separate mysteries or uniqueness.

Any member of the group can walk into a given area and have a belief that another member of that subset will have an identified set of skills. That their maybe difference in the skill set is understood but the difference so minimal they do not remove the person. Expectations are levied against the core component of the group by the individuals within the group.

Those outside the group may appear to have knowledge or awareness of the group but that is only a peripheral knowledge. For instance if I speak of 594's, 688's or 637's those outside that subset may known I am speaking of Submarine classes yet only those who have ridden Sub's can relate to the actual conditions of being on a sub.

So from that perspective you can read a book about subs but until you have ridden one you have no grounds or experience for comparison. You may talk some of the words and know some of the outside phrases but it's just talk until you've done the walk to back it up. Using the submarine concept I know their are Conners, Afters and Riders. Simply words except I have ridden the subs and understand the actual differences.

Now I am an Initiated Chief Petty Officer. Any one within that group knows exactly what that is and what it entails. They know what I underwent from the time I was designated as a Chief Select to my formal pinning ceremony. Those within the confines of the navy known what a "Chief" is but unless they have gone through that initiation they do not 'Known". From the day you enter the Navy as an enlisted person you see "Chief's" hear stories of what the initiation is but none of it is correct or understood until you go threw it.

Oh being outside the initiation you think you know because you know some of the words and phrase but they mean nothing till you have experienced them in the content they are used. Yes you have the core beliefs that originated form day one in the Navy. You have the common core knowledge and experience gained from books, classes. Yet all that is building material that is used to take you from 1st level initiation to 2nd to third.

To claim you are "Self Initiated" s ludicrous for you can not initiate yourself into a group. You may create the group and create the initiation process that will follow but again you can not imitate yourself into it.

You may claim knowledge of the group from reading but that knowledge is not backed by experience of the group or the understanding within the group. That knowledge is not enhanced with the persona of the group of its understanding of the union of person, god and association.

[Lunacie]

This is what I believe:

Wicca is an Initiatory Mystery Religion. Anyone that is not initiated (imho) is not Wiccan.

There are many solitary practitioners that are Wiccan in their beliefs and practices, but they base what they know only on what is publicly available. This does not make you Wiccan. It makes your religious practice loosely based on the public Wicca.

A better term for those that are "Wicca based" would be Neopagan. Claiming to be Wiccan, when in fact that's not what you are, but only "what you want to be", is disrespectful and insulting to those that have studied, been initiated and understand the mysteries.

That's not to say that Neopagan practice loosely based on Wicca is a bad thing. It's just not Wiccan...so why call it that, unless someone so badly wants to associate with the term that it no longer matters what Wicca is.

Of course, if Wicca is anything you want it to be...then nothing that I posted matters.

I have given birth and raised a daughter, but I am not insulted when someone becomes a step parent and calls herself "Mommy". I don't feel that disrespects or insults me, or takes away from my own accomplishment in any way.

What I find insults the title of "Mommy" is someone who abuses her authority as a parent, whether they gave birth or adopted or became a step parent.

Someone who is seriously dedicated to following the beliefs and practices of Wicca and doesn't make a public fool of themselves and then excuse it on account of being Wiccan, is doing nothing to disrespect my accomplishment as an initiated Wiccan (now Eclectic).





If these mysteries are published- no idea if this is true, don't really have any interest in reading about them, but assuming they are, you can go and read all you want about them. If you've not been trained in that tradition, you're taking them out of context first of all and second of all, you're reading a description of mechanics, which is no substitute for knowledge gained through firsthand experience.

A common, clichéd analogy...it's like a virgin reading about the experience of sex, or having it explained to them...you could explain the mechanics, or what it's like in your experience...but for all the explaination and description in the world, they can't really and fully understand what it's like til they've had sex themselves.

Well, a person can have Solitary Sex. :smileroll

I know, it's not quite the same thing, but hey, an orgasm is still an orgasm.



edited to add... I could not read the bright yellow post, owie that hurts my eyes.

[Ben Gruagach]

It's funny how things get misread (by more than one person too!)

I didn't say the mysteries were published -- but pointed out that even Vivianne Crowley, a prominent British Traditional Wiccan in England, has acknowledged that people can and do experience the mysteries prior to any coven involvement. (It's on page 53 of "Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age" for anyone who wants to look it up.)

Since the mysteries are experiential the best anyone can do is discuss their own impressions, thoughts, perhaps share details about mechanics, but like the analogy of sex that has been brought up already you can read all about it as much as you want but it isn't quite the same thing as actually experiencing it. But people still do an awful lot of talking about mysteries like sex. Personally I think all that talking about the mystery enhances our understanding of it and makes the experience more meaningful.

However, I did say that the secrets of Wicca are pretty much all published and out there for solitaries to pick up if they are looking for them. There was a HUGE uproar when Lady Sheba published her Book of Shadows back in the early 1970s because many Wiccans considered the information to be secret. It's a bit funny that there is such a fuss regarding maintaining secrecy about what exactly is done, knowing how eager Alex Sanders (founder of the Alexandrian Wicca denomination) was about showing off for the cameras. Have a look at the documentary "Legend of the Witches" and it seems very little is held back as secret.

Of course I don't consider it unreasonable to respect secrecy with regard to revealing a Wiccan's mundane identity (I don't like "outing" people), and practitioners can keep whatever secrets they want about what deity names they use in their group, what spells they have on the go, or what exact practices they engage in. But the practices themselves, even many of the invocations and chants and prayers, are not really that secret if they're published. And an awful lot of it is!

Gardnerians or Alexandrians or whatever groups are out there can go on thinking that they are the only "real" Wiccans but that won't stop any of the other Wiccans out there who self-identify independent of the lineaged groups. And until the day comes that Wiccans as a whole are willing to foolishly sacrifice their autonomy in order to set up a Wiccan Pope or Wiccan High Council that will presume to dictate to all Wiccans, those who worry about who is and isn't a "real" Wiccan are going to be rather frustrated.

Oh, and for the record, Scott Cunningham didn't come up with the idea of self-initiation or solitary Wiccans. Doreen Valiente provided a self-initiation ritual in her book "Witchcraft for Tomorrow" in 1978 -- ten years before Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" came out. And Raymond Buckland, who brought Gardnerian Wicca to the US, provided self-initiation as an explicit part of his Seax-Wicca tradition which he wrote about in "The Tree" which came out in 1974. Even Janet and Stewart Farrar provided a self-initiation ritual in 1981 in "The Witches' Way" (which is now the second part of "A Witches' Bible.")

[LadyWinter]

A valid lineage would be one linked to Gardner. If you're interested in traditional Wicca then initiation is required. If you want a Wiccan-inspired path then it is not.

I'd also like to know where these Wiccan mysteries have been supposedly "published". If anyone has claimed to be publishing Wiccan mysteries then I'd be wary and take it with a grain of salt, just as I would with someone claiming to publish Masonic or Mithras mysteries. I'd even go as far an say that they are frauds.

If being traced back to Gardner makes you Wiccan...what Makes you Gardnerian Wicca? Is there another Gardner?

I once was going to join a Wiccan coven...and their "Initiation" had NOTHING to do with any mysteries.

Winter

[David19]

It's funny how things get misread (by more than one person too!)

I didn't say the mysteries were published -- but pointed out that even Vivianne Crowley, a prominent British Traditional Wiccan in England, has acknowledged that people can and do experience the mysteries prior to any coven involvement. (It's on page 53 of "Wicca: The Old Religion in the New Age" for anyone who wants to look it up.)

Since the mysteries are experiential the best anyone can do is discuss their own impressions, thoughts, perhaps share details about mechanics, but like the analogy of sex that has been brought up already you can read all about it as much as you want but it isn't quite the same thing as actually experiencing it. But people still do an awful lot of talking about mysteries like sex. Personally I think all that talking about the mystery enhances our understanding of it and makes the experience more meaningful.

However, I did say that the secrets of Wicca are pretty much all published and out there for solitaries to pick up if they are looking for them. There was a HUGE uproar when Lady Sheba published her Book of Shadows back in the early 1970s because many Wiccans considered the information to be secret. It's a bit funny that there is such a fuss regarding maintaining secrecy about what exactly is done, knowing how eager Alex Sanders (founder of the Alexandrian Wicca denomination) was about showing off for the cameras. Have a look at the documentary "Legend of the Witches" and it seems very little is held back as secret.

Of course I don't consider it unreasonable to respect secrecy with regard to revealing a Wiccan's mundane identity (I don't like "outing" people), and practitioners can keep whatever secrets they want about what deity names they use in their group, what spells they have on the go, or what exact practices they engage in. But the practices themselves, even many of the invocations and chants and prayers, are not really that secret if they're published. And an awful lot of it is!


I've read that a guy named Aidan Kelly published an alledged Gardnerian BOS, but from what other Gardnerians seem to have said, the secrets are still safe (in other words, not everything you read is necessarily true).

From what I've been told, read and observed, Traditional Wiccans say there is a difference between Traditional Wicca (or Wica, the priesthood of 2 specific gods) and what they call Neo-Wicca (the eclectic versions, etc).

Besides if a author does publish some "secrets", can we really say it's real, as, 1) we can't know if they match up with Traditional Wiccan beliefs and practices, and 2) if they did obtain the secrets and then publish them, then they've broken their oaths to make some $, and again, can't really be trusted.

[Ben Gruagach]

No offense, but does that really need to be explained? I think it's a bit obvious what makes one a Gardnerian Wiccan.

And I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the second part.

I understood that question to be asking what distinguishes a Gardnerian Wiccan from another variety of Wiccan if all Wiccans are supposed to have lineage to Gardner.

It also raises the question that I suggested earlier in the thread how those Wiccan denominations like Alexandrian can count as Wiccan without that valid Gardnerian link. (Alex started Alexandrian Wicca after obtaining only a Gardnerian first degree, and that under rather questionable circumstances. Aren't new covens, let alone new denominations, supposed to be started by someone with at least a 2nd degree initiation and preferrably a 3rd degree initiation?)

Has a valid lineage to Gardner been proven for other denominations such as Central Valley Wicca and its offshoots?

The criteria that there must be lineage to Gardner makes it all very problematic for a number of commonly accepted Wiccan denominations.

[SoulFire]

It's funny how things get misread (by more than one person too!)

Since the mysteries are experiential the best anyone can do is discuss their own impressions, thoughts, perhaps share details about mechanics, but like the analogy of sex that has been brought up already you can read all about it as much as you want but it isn't quite the same thing as actually experiencing it. But people still do an awful lot of talking about mysteries like sex. Personally I think all that talking about the mystery enhances our understanding of it and makes the experience more meaningful.

I tend to agree. There are secrets, and then there are Mysteries, which anyone with the right motivation and talent can access. As Starhawk says:

"Mystery rituals, such as those of Witchcraft, follow a pattern of induction and revelation. The Mysteries are teachings that cannot be grasped by the intellect alone, but only by the deep mind made accessible in trance. They may be conveyed by an object--a shaft of wheat, as in the Eleusinian Mysteries--by a key phrase, or symbol. The secret itself may be meaningless when out of context; only within the framework of the ritual does it take on its illuminating power" (The Spiral Dance, p. 183).

Someone once said, "Guard the secrets well; reveal them often." ;)




Gardnerians or Alexandrians or whatever groups are out there can go on thinking that they are the only "real" Wiccans but that won't stop any of the other Wiccans out there who self-identify independent of the lineaged groups. And until the day comes that Wiccans as a whole are willing to foolishly sacrifice their autonomy in order to set up a Wiccan Pope or Wiccan High Council that will presume to dictate to all Wiccans, those who worry about who is and isn't a "real" Wiccan are going to be rather frustrated.

I just do NOT buy that ONLY Gardnerian initiated are real "Wiccan" and everybody else is "AE" (American Eclectic) or "neo-Wiccan" or simply a "Witch". What a load of crap. The most that Gardner did was invent a formalized tradition of Wicca. As Mike Nichols says, "Gerald Gardner only invented the GUI, he didn't invent the whole darn operating system!" Hanz Holzer once said something provocative in his book The New Pagans, that we are all "heirs of Wicca". (I know, he's a bit of a hack. This is a pretty good book though.) If non-Gardnerians are to expected to call themselves Witches only, then I PROUDLY accept this label over "Wiccan", thank you!


Oh, and for the record, Scott Cunningham didn't come up with the idea of self-initiation or solitary Wiccans. Doreen Valiente provided a self-initiation ritual in her book "Witchcraft for Tomorrow" in 1978 -- ten years before Cunningham's "Wicca: A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" came out. And Raymond Buckland, who brought Gardnerian Wicca to the US, provided self-initiation as an explicit part of his Seax-Wicca tradition which he wrote about in "The Tree" which came out in 1974. Even Janet and Stewart Farrar provided a self-initiation ritual in 1981 in "The Witches' Way" (which is now the second part of "A Witches' Bible.")

Yeah, in truth, Buckland was the first to suggest it. And it's funny because, ironically, I have met so-called Traditionalists (BTW) who've told me that when they were initiated, they were given material for their BoS that they later discovered was from Buckland's Tree, and it was presented to them as "ancient"! WEEeeeee! :spinnysmi And yet, these same people insist that if you are not Gardnerian, you may not call yourself Wicca, but only Witch. But that logic is a bit ridiculous, as the word "witch" comes from OE wicce (a female Witch) and wicca (a male Witch)!

Gardner doesn't own the trademark on the word. In fact, Charles Leland wrote about "Wicca" 60 years before Gardner, in his book Gypsy Sorcery and Fortune-Telling (ca. 1891), and--unlike Gardner--Leland spelled it correctly and gave fairly accurate etymology. Whereas, Gardner spelled it "Wica", and suggested a dubious meaning. See Doreen Valiente's article, The Derivation of the Word "Witch" (http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos620.htm).

Now, all that said, I am somewhat old-fashioned in that I do not hold with "self-initiation". I feel that Wiccecraft or Witchcraft is an initiatory Mystery religion, and entrance is through initiation only, by a qualified priestess or priest (who has undergone initiation herself/himself)--not of BTW, necessarily, but any tradition will suffice, IMO. Read The Heart of Wicca by Ellen Reed. I do, however, support self-dedication, which in my book is a different thing. But self-initiation, to me anyway, seems like a contradiction in terms. It's a bit like giving yourself a college degree (oh wait, didn't Gardner do that? ;) ) Just my 2 cents. YMMV.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I think one factor that maybe missing in this discussion is just what is the totality of Wicca.

That traditional "Wicca" demands Initiation is not in doubt. Yet people are becoming so wrapped around the requirement to be initiated they are forgetting the totality of the religion. It is the total picture of experience that makes one an initiated Wiccan. Initiation of and by itself does not make one a Wiccan.

Remove any facet of the "Totality" and you have removed the identy of being a "Wiccan". So to say one is not a Wiccan because they have not been initiated is maybe the most noticable reason but in all probability it is not the only reason.

The complete experince of Mystery, knowledge, application, initiation and socialization is required to be a "Wiccan". It is a formula or path of experinces and actions that make one a Wiccan not the mere concept of being initiated.

That the same system of events or actions is the basis for recognization for many possible religions. Without the understanding and experiences you can't be what you claim.

[SoulFire]

I think one factor that maybe missing in this discussion is just what is the totality of Wicca.

That traditional "Wicca" demands Initiation is not in doubt. Yet people are becoming so wrapped around the requirement to be initiated they are forgetting the totality of the religion. It is the total picture of experience that makes one an initiated Wiccan. Initiation of and by itself does not make one a Wiccan.

Remove any facet of the "Totality" and you have removed the identy of being a "Wiccan". So to say one is not a Wiccan because they have not been initiated is maybe the most noticable reason but in all probability it is not the only reason.

The complete experince of Mystery, knowledge, application, initiation and socialization is required to be a "Wiccan". It is a formula or path of experinces and actions that make one a Wiccan not the mere concept of being initiated.

You make a good point; however, I would argue that initiation implies all of the above: knowledge, Mystery, power, application, and socialization (in a coven environment). It is like a rite of passage that says, "You have applied yourself and learned the Craft well. You have demonstrated socialization, commitment, and understanding (of the Mysteries), as well as love of the Old Gods." Of course, initiation implies a bit more than that; ;) however, it does include those things. I am also of the opinion--and I know this from experience--that not everything can be learned from books. There are still secrets of the Craft that are unpublished, and only passed through oral tradition.

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I don't deny that the initiation is the culmination of the path, However, remove any facet of the path and you'll not reach the point of initiation.

If you don't reach that point then you can not claim what you seek. So in that light initiation is not the determining fact that makes one a "Wiccan" it only serves to recognize your completion of the steps needed to get to that point.

I also agree one does not learn everything from a book. Thier are things that must be experienced or endured to known its true meaning.

[Lunacie]

I've read that Gardner was initiating newbies at first level as more of a commitment to be open to learning and willing to be taught than as a recognition that they had met certain standards or goals.

If that is true then it makes it hard to understand why traditional covens insist that newbies must study with them for a year and a day and meet certain standards and goals before they can be initiated and be considered "true Wiccans." Of course it's possible that Gardner didn't consider his students to be "true Wiccans" until they had reached their second initiation, but there still seems to be a disconnect between what Gardner taught and what is taught nowadays. :huh:

[MonSno_LeeDra]

I wonder if it was a "Initiation" in the concept of completion or in the concept of a commitment and recognization of that commitment? Unless one went threw it their really is no way to know just what it was.

That fact it no longer appears to be part of the process may be recognization that it failed in its purpose. That it no longer is used could be the clue to its initial function and failure to inspire the desired results.

Of course this is all speculation based upon no tangle evidence to support it on my part.

[SoulFire]

I've read that Gardner was initiating newbies at first level as more of a commitment to be open to learning and willing to be taught than as a recognition that they had met certain standards or goals.

If that is true then it makes it hard to understand why traditional covens insist that newbies must study with them for a year and a day and meet certain standards and goals before they can be initiated and be considered "true Wiccans." . . . :huh:

I think this may be an older way of doing things. I cannot speak for Gardner's Craft, but only my tradition (or rather my line, Vicia, of my tradition). We tend to view initiation as a beginning, rather than the culmination, of study and practice. As Cora Anderson wrote in her book, "Initiation does not make you a full-blown, highly trained Witch." Also, we treat the Initiation like a "marriage" to the Gods. This is how it is done in the Faery Tradition, but I realize not all traditions do things the same way.

When I train someone, I also like to perform a formal Dedication ceremony before Initiation proper. This is likened to the "1st degree" in Wicca. We do not insist on the year-and-a-day, but we do take our time getting to know the person first. Some basic teachings are shared, and if the person wishes to train with us, and we agree, then after a time an Initiation may be granted. The candidate is considered a "Witch" regardless, after the Dedication, whether they decide to pursue Initiation or not. The real training starts following Dedication.

I personally take Initiation seriously because all too many people today treat Witchcraft as a club, or something to do to appear "cool", but also because the student becomes part of our extended family. I am old-fashioned and do not feel that Witchcraft is a religion for the masses, or that everybody is suited to it, no matter how badly they may want to join. Many are called; few are chosen. Quality is more important to me than quantity of students.

[SoulFire]

I don't deny that the initiation is the culmination of the path, However, remove any facet of the path and you'll not reach the point of initiation.

If you don't reach that point then you can not claim what you seek. So in that light initiation is not the determining fact that makes one a "Wiccan" it only serves to recognize your completion of the steps needed to get to that point.



Well, that is true. Unless you believe in and practice the Tenets of Witchcraft (or any religion), you cannot lay claim to the title. But in some Traditional forms of Witchcraft, you cannot learn what these are unless you commit to studying with a teacher with the goal of Initiation. Some things are only taught to Initiates. That's the way it has been done, and still is done, in some traditions of the Craft.

I realize some seekers may not like this. I have seen newbies on this forum ask for information and lore that they could easily have found on their own (Google (http://www.google.com), anyone?), had they taken responsibility for their own learning. I have had people email me and lament that they want very much to become an initiate, but admit that they are lazy and do not do any of the exercises they are given, have no discipline to do any kind of daily practice, and some admit they cannot even read a book from cover to cover, but rather skim it! Instead, it seems, many newbies want everything handed to them on a silver platter, with mint as a garnish.

[Fiamma]

Instead, it seems, many newbies want everything handed to them on a silver platter, with mint as a garnish.


And woe to they who garnish with parsley...

:-P

[IsauraStrider]

It depends on the tradition. I'm solitary at the moment but I would love to get invovled with a coven but the problem is there aren't many around here I'd have to do a one to two hour drive possibly even a four hour drive to get to a coven. Being in a coven in a small town is sometimes impossble. But I did do a self initiation as a teen.

[SoulFire]

And woe to they who garnish with parsley...

:-P

LMAO! So true. ;)

[Lunacie]

I think this may be an older way of doing things. I cannot speak for Gardner's Craft, but only my tradition (or rather my line, Vicia, of my tradition). We tend to view initiation as a beginning, rather than the culmination, of study and practice. As Cora Anderson wrote in her book, "Initiation does not make you a full-blown, highly trained Witch." Also, we treat the Initiation like a "marriage" to the Gods. This is how it is done in the Faery Tradition, but I realize not all traditions do things the same way.

When I train someone, I also like to perform a formal Dedication ceremony before Initiation proper. This is likened to the "1st degree" in Wicca. We do not insist on the year-and-a-day, but we do take our time getting to know the person first. Some basic teachings are shared, and if the person wishes to train with us, and we agree, then after a time an Initiation may be granted. The candidate is considered a "Witch" regardless, after the Dedication, whether they decide to pursue Initiation or not. The real training starts following Dedication.

I personally take Initiation seriously because all too many people today treat Witchcraft as a club, or something to do to appear "cool", but also because the student becomes part of our extended family. I am old-fashioned and do not feel that Witchcraft is a religion for the masses, or that everybody is suited to it, no matter how badly they may want to join. Many are called; few are chosen. Quality is more important to me than quantity of students.

Yeah, that's how I see it too. The first initiation is a beginning, a recognition of the student's dedication to learning and growing and practicing. And then the real training starts.

Funny thing... you know that saying about "when the student is ready the teacher will appear?" A few months ago the gods bashed me over the head and told me to start teaching already, and now that "the teacher is ready" the students just keep appearing. An old friend contacted me on Sunday to ask about classes and I think he will make a good addition to the group/family. This will be the third new student (not counting the one that was turned away) since I took over as leader just 5 months ago. His wife would like to join us too.



It depends on the tradition. I'm solitary at the moment but I would love to get invovled with a coven but the problem is there aren't many around here I'd have to do a one to two hour drive possibly even a four hour drive to get to a coven. Being in a coven in a small town is sometimes impossble. But I did do a self initiation as a teen.

Our group is very scattered. I live in the center and I have to drive almost an hour to get to anyone else's house. That means that the others have to drive over an hour to get anywhere but my house. And one of the new guys has to drive half an hour to get to my house and then carpool with me another hour to get to the Grove from here. Is it worth it? It certainly is to me.

I used to live in a very small town (about 100 pop) near a town of about 45,000, very hard to find a coven or grove that was accepting new students. Even here within 15 miles of fairly large city its pretty hard finding a coven or group, especially one you feel comfortable and compatible with.

[Ben Gruagach]

I've read that Gardner was initiating newbies at first level as more of a commitment to be open to learning and willing to be taught than as a recognition that they had met certain standards or goals.

If that is true then it makes it hard to understand why traditional covens insist that newbies must study with them for a year and a day and meet certain standards and goals before they can be initiated and be considered "true Wiccans." Of course it's possible that Gardner didn't consider his students to be "true Wiccans" until they had reached their second initiation, but there still seems to be a disconnect between what Gardner taught and what is taught nowadays. :huh:

It's been said by a number of Alexandrian initiates that good old Alex would have initiated his mailman if the guy would just stand still long enough!

(Great posts, everyone! I think this is all demonstrating that the topic of initiation in Wicca is a very complex one that requires a lot of serious thought for those who hope to become Wiccan.)

[LadyWinter]

I understood that question to be asking what distinguishes a Gardnerian Wiccan from another variety of Wiccan if all Wiccans are supposed to have lineage to Gardner.

It also raises the question that I suggested earlier in the thread how those Wiccan denominations like Alexandrian can count as Wiccan without that valid Gardnerian link. (Alex started Alexandrian Wicca after obtaining only a Gardnerian first degree, and that under rather questionable circumstances. Aren't new covens, let alone new denominations, supposed to be started by someone with at least a 2nd degree initiation and preferrably a 3rd degree initiation?)

Has a valid lineage to Gardner been proven for other denominations such as Central Valley Wicca and its offshoots?

The criteria that there must be lineage to Gardner makes it all very problematic for a number of commonly accepted Wiccan denominations.

This was exactly my question! Thanks for not being sarcastic and actually having an intelligent exchange!

Winter

[Seren_]

To start a new coven, yes, to start a new "tradition, no. Alex based his new tradition on a complete Gardnerian Book of Shadows, thus creating the link.

A link, but not a valid lineage. Alex was reputed to have received a first degree initiation, but not second or third. Even if he had received the first degree with a valid lineage to Gardner this didn't entitle him to go on to teach as a Gardnerian.

Only second degree initiates can hive off and start their own coven, and they can generally only initiate up to the degree they're at. Some covens only allow third degree initiates to hive off, certainly with any autonomy anyway. So technically, as I understand it, Alexandrians have their own lineage to Alex, but not a full lineage to Gardner.

[Simply Puzzled]

A link, but not a valid lineage. Alex was reputed to have received a first degree initiation, but not second or third. Even if he had received the first degree with a valid lineage to Gardner this didn't entitle him to go on to teach as a Gardnerian.

Only second degree initiates can hive off and start their own coven, and they can generally only initiate up to the degree they're at. Some covens only allow third degree initiates to hive off, certainly with any autonomy anyway. So technically, as I understand it, Alexandrians have their own lineage to Alex, but not a full lineage to Gardner.

Here's the thing though, this issue was debated within the community, and they came to the conclusion that Alexandrians were within the core and to be recognized as validly lineaged.

I am a Master Mason. Suppose it became popular to initiate yourself into our Mysteries (just as impossible in Masonry as Wicca) and claim to be a Freemason. Now imagine they start demanding they be recognized and be able to claim the right to sit in any regular and well-governed lodge. There might be a time at which we recognized them, but if we do, that is a decision to be made in-house. They get no vote. None. They have no right to demand anything, even if a few Master Masons egged them on by writing books saying they could initiate themselves.

Those who are not initiated have no right to claim that they are Wiccan until the people that have valid lineage choose to accept them. So far they haven't. For good reason. The people who have initiation say you need it, and I accept that.

[Ben Gruagach]

To start a new coven, yes, to start a new "tradition, no. Alex based his new tradition on a complete Gardnerian Book of Shadows, thus creating the link.

Yes, denomination such as Alexandrian and Dianic Wicca have proven lineages to Gardner. As for Central Valley, I cannot say.

And this is why I say that there is a difference between Traditional and Non-traditional Wicca.

It's all so confusing since self-declared British Traditional Wicca groups such as the New Wiccan Church (at http://www.newwiccanchurch.net/ ) clearly list Central Valley Wicca and its offshoots as BTWicca even without the proven Gardnerian link. They're also listed in the Beaufort House Trad List (which is here (http://beaufort.bravepages.com/) if you can get past the popups) along with quite a few other groups.

It also raises sticky questions about why people like Silver RavenWolf and what she teaches shouldn't be considered Wiccan. After all, she does have lineage to Gardner (she gives her lineage on page 247 of my copy of "To Stir a Magick Cauldron.")

[Ben Gruagach]

Here's the thing though, this issue was debated within the community, and they came to the conclusion that Alexandrians were within the core and to be recognized as validly lineaged.

I am a Master Mason. Suppose it became popular to initiate yourself into our Mysteries (just as impossible in Masonry as Wicca) and claim to be a Freemason. Now imagine they start demanding they be recognized and be able to claim the right to sit in any regular and well-governed lodge. There might be a time at which we recognized them, but if we do, that is a decision to be made in-house. They get no vote. None. They have no right to demand anything, even if a few Master Masons egged them on by writing books saying they could initiate themselves.

Those who are not initiated have no right to claim that they are Wiccan until the people that have valid lineage choose to accept them. So far they haven't. For good reason. The people who have initiation say you need it, and I accept that.

Freemasonry though didn't claim a generic (although archaic) term for itself and then attempt to redefine it in a limited way to exclude others who also use the term.

A better analogy would be to say Freemasonry is like the Roman Catholic church. I don't think many would argue that anyone can come along and claim to be a valid Roman Catholic priest without the approval of the Vatican. However, the Roman Catholic church doesn't get to decide how other Christian churches pick their priests. After all, those other Christian churches are still Christian whether the Roman Catholics approve or not.

To continue the analogy, the attempt to reserve the label Wicca for British Traditional Wicca is like Freemasons trying to reserve the right to decide what counts as a secret society (or a society with secrets.) Do Freemasons get to tell Golden Dawn initiates they are not "real" secret society members?

[Lunacie]

I'm sure I got distracted by that interesting new word "Initionary" and didn't notice until just now that this was posted in "Just Pagan". Should this be moved to the "Paths - Wicca" forum?

[Simply Puzzled]

Freemasonry though didn't claim a generic (although archaic) term for itself and then attempt to redefine it in a limited way to exclude others who also use the term.

If most people claiming to use the word were basing their practices off of reconstruction of the people that originally used it, I would agree with you. However, a specific group of people resurrected a long dead word to describe themselves, and then other people began to use their practices and their word to describe themselves. It's not like most people using the word independently arrived at the conclusion to use it based off of historical research.



A better analogy would be to say Freemasonry is like the Roman Catholic church. I don't think many would argue that anyone can come along and claim to be a valid Roman Catholic priest without the approval of the Vatican. However, the Roman Catholic church doesn't get to decide how other Christian churches pick their priests. After all, those other Christian churches are still Christian whether the Roman Catholics approve or not.

Of course, the Pope recently reaffirmed the doctrine that non-Roman Catholic churches are not really churches at all, except for the Orthodox church which is "deeply wounded" because it doesn't recognize papal authority. Whether they have the authority or not is up for debate, but they think they still get to decide what is a church and what isn't.



To continue the analogy, the attempt to reserve the label Wicca for British Traditional Wicca is like Freemasons trying to reserve the right to decide what counts as a secret society (or a society with secrets.) Do Freemasons get to tell Golden Dawn initiates they are not "real" secret society members?

We aren't a secret society. We make this very clear in our literature.

[Twinkle]

From what I understand, Freemasonry is not "secret". It is "private". Big difference.

[Simply Puzzled]

It also raises sticky questions about why people like Silver RavenWolf and what she teaches shouldn't be considered Wiccan. After all, she does have lineage to Gardner (she gives her lineage on page 247 of my copy of "To Stir a Magick Cauldron.")

It absolutely doesn't raise a sticky question, and I'm really shocked that you would be so unfamiliar with lineage as to state that it does. Here is Silver Ravens self-professed lineage:



Gerald Gardner to Raymond Buckland, Buckland to Michael Ragan (Seax-Wicca), Ragan to Lord Serphant, Serphant to Silver RavenWolf.


For starters, she isn't even familiar enough with the concept of lineage to make it alternate male/female. It should read: Gerald Gardner to Lady Olwen to Raymond Buckland, etc. If, in fact, Ragan does claim descent from Buckland, that would falsify the lineage straight off because a man cannot claim lineage from a man, with the possible exception of his father.

Secondly, lineage is only valid as long as long as you are passing the tradition. When Buckland created Seax-Wica, he was going so far outside of the bounds of Wicca that he knew he was creating something new. Since Seax is recognized by the BTW community as being non-BTW, you can't claim lineage past it.

Her claim that she has lineage to Gerald is an absolute lie (which I have no doubt she believes), and I know of no one that would consider it to be valid.

[Twinkle]

What a fantastic post!!

In the end, it all comes down to people wanting to claim the name Wicca for some sort of validation of a personal practice.

[Simply Puzzled]

What a fantastic post!!

In the end, it all comes down to people wanting to claim the name Wicca for some sort of validation of a personal practice.

How sadly true.

[SoulFire]

For starters, she isn't even familiar enough with the concept of lineage to make it alternate male/female. It should read: Gerald Gardner to Lady Olwen to Raymond Buckland, etc. If, in fact, Ragan does claim descent from Buckland, that would falsify the lineage straight off because a man cannot claim lineage from a man, with the possible exception of his father.

Secondly, lineage is only valid as long as long as you are passing the tradition. When Buckland created Seax-Wica, he was going so far outside of the bounds of Wicca that he knew he was creating something new. Since Seax is recognized by the BTW community as being non-BTW, you can't claim lineage past it.



As I mentioned earlier, I have met some STAUNCH BTW who've told me that when they were initiated they were given material they were told was "ancient", but they discovered later it actually came directly from a pre-published version of Buckland's book The Tree. So lineage to Gardner or Sanders really DOESN'T impress me anymore. Just more dogma and myth. :blor:

If people don't like the Roman Catholic Church telling them they aren't 'true' Christians unless they join their Church, how much happier do you think neo-Pagans are at being told they are not 'true' Wiccan unless they belong to the Church of Wicca (Gardner, not Frost)? Crap, I say. Utter crap, and I can smell an angel fart from heaven. That's how good my nose is. But then it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of Gardnerians or Alexandrians are former Catholics. ;) Oh, wait--Stewart Farrar said that Maxine joined the Church; he also commented that Catholics make the best Wiccan. Coincidence?

I'm just sayin'.

:rant:

That said, I agree that SRW cannot claim BTW lineage through Buckland if her initiation was Seax. That'd be like: I am an initiate in two branches of Faery by different teachers, Pictish/Faery (by Lillian Taber) and Anderson Feri (by the Andersons). If I initiated someone into Pictish/Faery, and they later claimed Anderson Feri lineage, they would be lying. While they may legitimately claim a Faery lineage through me, they cannot claim Anderson Feri lineage unless I (or someone else) also gave them Feri initiation. So I see your point there, and agree. SRW is neo-Wiccan, or Seax-Wiccan at best. Just my 2 cents.

[Ben Gruagach]

If most people claiming to use the word were basing their practices off of reconstruction of the people that originally used it, I would agree with you. However, a specific group of people resurrected a long dead word to describe themselves, and then other people began to use their practices and their word to describe themselves. It's not like most people using the word independently arrived at the conclusion to use it based off of historical research.

This might make sense if the word Wicca was used right from the start by Gardner to specify just his tradition. Unfortunately for this logical argument, the word Wicca and Witch were used interchangeably and it wasn't really until the 1980s that people started to really make a distinction between Wicca as a specific thing within the larger Witchcraft category. Gardner himself almost always referred to what he was promoting as Witchcraft.


Of course, the Pope recently reaffirmed the doctrine that non-Roman Catholic churches are not really churches at all, except for the Orthodox church which is "deeply wounded" because it doesn't recognize papal authority. Whether they have the authority or not is up for debate, but they think they still get to decide what is a church and what isn't.

Just like it's questionable whether BTWiccans will get anywhere in claiming that they are the only "real" Wiccans.


[Freemasons] aren't a secret society. We make this very clear in our literature.

That's why I said, "or a society with secrets." (It's pretty commonly assumed in the general public that Freemasonry is a secret society, so it's not an unreasonable classification despite statements to the contrary.)

We can use a different term then to continue the Freemasonry analogy. Freemasons are a fraternal organization. Does that mean that they get to tell other fraternal organizations that they are or aren't a "real" fraternal organization?

[Twinkle]

Freemasons are a fraternal organization. Does that mean that they get to tell other fraternal organizations that they are or aren't a "real" fraternal organization?


I think it would if people were claiming to be Freemasons, and basing that knowledge off what was publicly available. The people that pledged and came up through Freemasonry would probably take great offense to it...especially if after a week someone claimed to be a Master Mason after reading Freemason literature.

[Ben Gruagach]

I brought up the Silver RavenWolf lineage because it strikes me as a bit more solid and more easily proven than Alex Sander's connection to Gardner. I just find it amusing how one group gets treated like they're the black sheep of the family while others with just as questionable a lineage are treated as revered ones.

(Loved your post, SoulFire. That's quite a nose!)

[Ben Gruagach]

Freemasons are a fraternal organization. Does that mean that they get to tell other fraternal organizations that they are or aren't a "real" fraternal organization?


I think it would if people were claiming to be Freemasons, and basing that knowledge off what was publicly available. The people that pledged and came up through Freemasonry would probably take great offense to it...especially if after a week someone claimed to be a Master Mason after reading Freemason literature.

The analogy was this:

Freemasons = Gardnerian Wiccans
Fraternal organizations = Wicca in general

I don't think anyone (to my knowledge) suggests that anyone can say they are a Gardnerian Wiccan without following Gardnerian Wiccan rules to become a member. The problem is whether Gardnerians get to dictate who is and isn't a Wiccan.

Just to simplify and clarify.

[Ben Gruagach]

In the end, it all comes down to people wanting to claim the name Wicca for some sort of validation of a personal practice.

I'm sure there are some Roman Catholics out there who say pretty much the same thing to dismiss those they consider "fake" Christians (you know the ones -- the ones who aren't members of the "correct" church.)

[SoulFire]

If most people claiming to use the word were basing their practices off of reconstruction of the people that originally used it, I would agree with you. However, a specific group of people resurrected a long dead word to describe themselves, and then other people began to use their practices and their word to describe themselves. It's not like most people using the word independently arrived at the conclusion to use it based off of historical research.

However, not everyone using the term today are doing the same practices that Gardner et al developed. And I HIGHLY doubt that King Alfred meant the same thing when he referred to Witches as "Wiccan", back in AD 890. Just as I doubt that Aldhelm's Glossary, ca. AD 1100, meant the same thing either. In fact, most people today probably mean something VERY different, deriving their practices from Cunningham, SRW, Starhawk, or one of the other popular authors.



Of course, the Pope recently reaffirmed the doctrine that non-Roman Catholic churches are not really churches at all, except for the Orthodox church which is "deeply wounded" because it doesn't recognize papal authority. Whether they have the authority or not is up for debate, but they think they still get to decide what is a church and what isn't.



Doesn't make the Pope right, nor justify BTW insisting that only they are 'true' Wiccan. 'Pope Gardner'? I thought Wicca had no pope, no external authority? I would suggest that if anyone believes it does, they might want to have a look at Bonewits' Cult Danger Evaluation Frame (http://www.neopagan.net/ABCDEF.html).

[SoulFire]

The analogy was this:

Freemasons = Gardnerian Wiccans
Fraternal organizations = Wicca in general

I don't think anyone (to my knowledge) suggests that anyone can say they are a Gardnerian Wiccan without following Gardnerian Wiccan rules to become a member. The problem is whether Gardnerians get to dictate who is and isn't a Wiccan.

Just to simplify and clarify.

I agree. That is why I said earlier that neither Gardner, nor BTW, own the trademark. Especially as Leland used the word (spelled and used correctly, unlike Gardner) 60 years earlier, and King Alfred used it in 1100. (I find it amusing that Gardner used the masculine noun to refer to all practitioners.) I believe Gardnerian Craft is one tradition of Wiccecraeft; it is not the whole ball of wax however.

BTW, I like your analogy, Ben. And yes, I have a powerful nose. ;) I think it's my Mercury in Capicorn. :hehehe: :halohead:

[Lunacie]

What a fantastic post!!

In the end, it all comes down to people wanting to claim the name Wicca for some sort of validation of a personal practice.

Although there are some people who are probably wanting to claim the name of Wicca in order to look like they're practicing something that's valid (anything that people practice wholeheartedly is valid in my opinion), I wouldn't say it all comes down to just those people. There are an awful lot who are genuinely confused as to what does and doesn't constitute valid Wiccan practices. I would get out my Ouija board and try to ask Uncle Gerald himself, but of course no one would simply accept my word for what he told me (if he came through).

My opinion, and one I've seen shared by a rather large number of people who do claim the name of Wicca, is that as long as your practices are by-and-large what Gardner taught to his initiates, then it's good enough to be called Wicca. Didn't Gardner himself say that it's not always necessary to be skyclad for instance?

(Stands back while a whole new batch hits the fan...)

[David19]

It also raises sticky questions about why people like Silver RavenWolf and what she teaches shouldn't be considered Wiccan. After all, she does have lineage to Gardner (she gives her lineage on page 247 of my copy of "To Stir a Magick Cauldron.")

Are you sure, 'cause I'm sure I've read that SRW lied about her lineage. I haven't got the quote on me, though.

[David19]

It absolutely doesn't raise a sticky question, and I'm really shocked that you would be so unfamiliar with lineage as to state that it does. Here is Silver Ravens self-professed lineage:



For starters, she isn't even familiar enough with the concept of lineage to make it alternate male/female. It should read: Gerald Gardner to Lady Olwen to Raymond Buckland, etc. If, in fact, Ragan does claim descent from Buckland, that would falsify the lineage straight off because a man cannot claim lineage from a man, with the possible exception of his father.

Secondly, lineage is only valid as long as long as you are passing the tradition. When Buckland created Seax-Wica, he was going so far outside of the bounds of Wicca that he knew he was creating something new. Since Seax is recognized by the BTW community as being non-BTW, you can't claim lineage past it.

Her claim that she has lineage to Gerald is an absolute lie (which I have no doubt she believes), and I know of no one that would consider it to be valid.

Didn't see that you had already said it ;).

[David19]

Yeah, in truth, Buckland was the first to suggest it. And it's funny because, ironically, I have met so-called Traditionalists (BTW) who've told me that when they were initiated, they were given material for their BoS that they later discovered was from Buckland's Tree, and it was presented to them as "ancient"! WEEeeeee! :spinnysmi And yet, these same people insist that if you are not Gardnerian, you may not call yourself Wicca, but only Witch. But that logic is a bit ridiculous, as the word "witch" comes from OE wicce (a female Witch) and wicca (a male Witch)!

I've read that Buckland used to be a big traditional Wiccan, but when he moved to the U.S., he got so many people knocking on his door, that he just decided to create a self-initiation and other traditions of Wicca (Seax, for example).

[Ben Gruagach]

I've read that Buckland used to be a big traditional Wiccan, but when he moved to the U.S., he got so many people knocking on his door, that he just decided to create a self-initiation and other traditions of Wicca (Seax, for example).

Your sources were not very accurate, David.

Ray Buckland's role in bringing Gardnerian Wicca to the US is pretty well documented. There's an excellent summary in the entry on Ray in "The Encyclopedia of Modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism" edited by Shelley Rabinovitch and James Lewis.

[Twinkle]

Although there are some people who are probably wanting to claim the name of Wicca in order to look like they're practicing something that's valid (anything that people practice wholeheartedly is valid in my opinion), I wouldn't say it all comes down to just those people. There are an awful lot who are genuinely confused as to what does and doesn't constitute valid Wiccan practices. I would get out my Ouija board and try to ask Uncle Gerald himself, but of course no one would simply accept my word for what he told me (if he came through).

My opinion, and one I've seen shared by a rather large number of people who do claim the name of Wicca, is that as long as your practices are by-and-large what Gardner taught to his initiates, then it's good enough to be called Wicca. Didn't Gardner himself say that it's not always necessary to be skyclad for instance?

(Stands back while a whole new batch hits the fan...)
I take it you've read Gardner. You do realize that his writing is almost impossible to understand. He was a dyslexic and his work reflects that. How many people do you think, without training, truly understand what he was writing and are able to practically apply it in their own practice. Gardner also did not include the mysteries in his work...so while it may be acceptable to the vast amount of solitary Wiccans, it is not Wicca....it's the publicly available version of Wicca...which would make it Ne0Wicca or Neopaganism...not Wicca.

[Lunacie]

I take it you've read Gardner. You do realize that his writing is almost impossible to understand. He was a dyslexic and his work reflects that. How many people do you think, without training, truly understand what he was writing and are able to practically apply it in their own practice. Gardner also did not include the mysteries in his work...so while it may be acceptable to the vast amount of solitary Wiccans, it is not Wicca....it's the publicly available version of Wicca...which would make it Ne0Wicca or Neopaganism...not Wicca.

As I said, a large number of people are honestly confused about what Gardner said the "rules" should be, and if it was fairly confusing when he was alive and writing it all down, how much more confusing must it be at this point when there are several versions of Wicca around.

You have every right to call most of those versions NeoWicca or NeoPaganism. I have every right to call some of them Wicca if I believe they are including enough of the basics to qualify. Don't see any point in arguing about it ... again.

[Greybird]

So... what is Gardner? Not who is Gardner, I know who he is. What is he, besides an innovator? What claim does he have to being the exclusive 'source', when the material under the (subjective) 'Wicca' umbrella currently consists of hundreds of times what Gardner put there, mostly by other innovators? Why is his legitimate and theirs not, just because they vary* from him in some detail here or there, but have built off of his foundation?

More to the point, if I have every bit of Gardnerian information, and practice according to that, having found the mysteries myself, but have never been initiated by a Gardner-lineaged coven, then according to some arguments here, I'm not a member of the Wiccan religion. Why? The line back to Gardner is the most important piece? Why are we claiming some divine prophet status for the man that simply touching his robe can make us holy?

Might a better example be whether different Christian sects can really be called Christian when some are overtly heretical to each other? If I started a new denomination that met a few very basic criteria about Christ, could I not be called a Christian?

Honestly, unless you're trying to claim that Gardner was a prophet, the only real 'lineage only' basis would be that Gardnerians have exclusive right to the word 'Wicca' - just to the word - because of how Gardner used it. Had you made that claim in 1960, I might have been swayed, but not now. Aspirin, yo-yo, escalator, brassiere. Every one was a brand name, usable only by a single entity, applied only to one version of a thing. Time went by, and the meaning of the word changed. Maybe (questionably) Wicca was once a term with a very exclusive meaning. Time has gone by, and the meaning of the word has changed. It doesn't mean 'Unky G's Club' anymore, it means followers of a religion who meet certain guideline (Ben's, again.) Claiming that only Gardnerians can use the term Wicca is like claiming that only aspirin made by the Bayer company can be considered 'real', as they were the ones to coin the word. Sorry, Bayer. The word applies to a whole class of products now.



*A few notes:
~I generally just call myself a 'pagan', although I fit the definition of Wiccan according to some people (I fit Ben's definition.) I don't use the term 'Wiccan' for myself except very occasionally with the general public, as it simplifies what would otherwise be a three hour explanation, and only pagans would be aware of the distinctions. I don't feel much need to defend the 'Wicca' label, and am engaged here for the discussion rather than out of need for validation

~I'm a big proponent of limiting the definition of Wicca, as some people seem to use it to mean 'whatever you want to do', which makes 'Wicca' synonymous with 'religion', which makes no sense. If your practice is 90% Hindu, then you're and odd Hindu sect, not Wiccan. (That's why I don't usually call myself Wiccan, by the way - I'm what Wicca would be if you stripped most of the Ceremonial/Masonic components out, but kept the underlying concepts.)

[Lauren Michele]

I was on another forum where someone said that Wicca is initionary based religions, to which I corrected them saying that Wicca is not an initionary based religion, however some traditional variations of it are.

Franky those who think you must be able to cite your lineage or be initioned by a Coven annoy me.

I myself, did a self Inition, but they weren't referring to that.

One of them blatantly said, "If people aren't initiated, how will they now what to do and which god to worship.

My response was that is you don't have the drive to study for yourself, then you're not serious about it, and that certain gods/goddesses will vary depending on practitioner/tradition even though core elements should be the same.

I also mentioned that you don't have to be in a Coven to learn from other practitioners.

I think it's obvious where I stand, where do you?


Hi, there was a saying It takes a witch to make a witch, which is not necessarily so anymore due to so many Wiccan's being solitare and Eclectic at this new age. I agree, if you don't have the drive as you said, then self Initiation is meaningless. If a Wiccan has studied alone and he/she feels ready for self Initiation, then I believe The Goddess and God alone is all one needs to be Initiated from.

[Simply Puzzled]

So... what is Gardner? Not who is Gardner, I know who he is. What is he, besides an innovator? What claim does he have to being the exclusive 'source', when the material under the (subjective) 'Wicca' umbrella currently consists of hundreds of times what Gardner put there, mostly by other innovators? Why is his legitimate and theirs not, just because they vary* from him in some detail here or there, but have built off of his foundation?

More to the point, if I have every bit of Gardnerian information, and practice according to that, having found the mysteries myself, but have never been initiated by a Gardner-lineaged coven, then according to some arguments here, I'm not a member of the Wiccan religion. Why? The line back to Gardner is the most important piece? Why are we claiming some divine prophet status for the man that simply touching his robe can make us holy?

First of all, it is quite possible to be lineaged in Wicca but not through Gardner. Central Valley Wicca is accepted by most BTW that I am aware of, yet it comes through a branch of the New Forest Coven that is separate. Again though, this is a decision made within the BTW community as to what constitutes their Mysteries.

So lets say you have all the information of a Gardnerian and have experienced the Mysteries. How do you know you've experienced the Mysteries? Because a Mystery, by definition, can only be experienced, not told, one can only pass a Mystery by doing it the same way it was done to them. That requires lineage. Even if it is possible for you to experience the Mysteries, there is no way to know for sure.

Lastly, people do build off of his sources, but the community itself retains the right to decide what is in the core. For example, Janet Farrar has lineage directly to Sanders, yet what she is doing now, by her own words, is not BTW. She has innovated enough that she no longer feels it is Alexandrian, and she explains to all her new initiates that they do not have lineage back to him.

[Ben Gruagach]

So lets say you have all the information of a Gardnerian and have experienced the Mysteries. How do you know you've experienced the Mysteries? Because a Mystery, by definition, can only be experienced, not told, one can only pass a Mystery by doing it the same way it was done to them. That requires lineage. Even if it is possible for you to experience the Mysteries, there is no way to know for sure.

This requires some rather large (and questionable) assumptions to be made:

1. That spiritual Mysteries are only experienced at the hands of other mortals.

2. That BTWiccans are the exclusive keepers and dispensers of the Wiccan mysteries.

The fact that Central Valley Wicca is accepted as a valid Wiccan Mystery line independent of Gardner creates a lot of problems for those who insist that lineage must trace to Gardner.

Gardner himself presented his system as just one survival of what he thought was the Witchcraft religion (which people are now calling Wicca, to distinguish it from other forms of witchcraft that might or might not be religions.) That means that even he didn't think his group and its descendants were necessarily the only "true" Wiccans.

[Simply Puzzled]

This requires some rather large (and questionable) assumptions to be made:

1. That spiritual Mysteries are only experienced at the hands of other mortals.


This is not what I said. I have experienced Mysteries by myself. They are gifts from the gods, and I treasure them. I am saying that there is no way to prove that you have received a Mystery, unless someone gives it to you and vouches for you.



The fact that Central Valley Wicca is accepted as a valid Wiccan Mystery line independent of Gardner creates a lot of problems for those who insist that lineage must trace to Gardner.


Not really. CVW and Gardner, to the best of my understanding, both come from the same place, the New Forest Coven. Unless you are operating under the assumption that Gardner made it all up, I don't find it problematic.


Gardner himself presented his system as just one survival of what he thought was the Witchcraft religion (which people are now calling Wicca, to distinguish it from other forms of witchcraft that might or might not be religions.) That means that even he didn't think his group and its descendants were necessarily the only "true" Wiccans.

Like I said, if you independently arrive at the conclusion that the archaic term applies to you independently of the modern Wiccan movement - go for it. What I see is people taking the priesthood started by Gardner, bastardizing it, and then claiming its still the real McCoy. This is something I disagree with.

[Izrail]

Like I said, if you independently arrive at the conclusion that the archaic term applies to you independently of the modern Wiccan movement - go for it. What I see is people taking the priesthood started by Gardner, bastardizing it, and then claiming its still the real McCoy. This is something I disagree with.

You refer to the term wicca as both an archaic and "dead" term. I don't feel this to be entirely accurate. Archaic in origin, yes. Dead, no. How do you explain Tolkien's use of this term in reference to wizards in his Middle Earth? Specifically, I believe he used this term many times in margin notes. And if Leland was using this term as well, it can't be accurately argued that Gardner resurrected the term from the dead and therefor Gardnerians can lay claim to that term. Just a thought. :weirdsmil

[Simply Puzzled]

You refer to the term wicca as both an archaic and "dead" term. I don't feel this to be entirely accurate. Archaic in origin, yes. Dead, no. How do you explain Tolkien's use of this term in reference to wizards in his Middle Earth? Specifically, I believe he used this term many times in margin notes. And if Leland was using this term as well, it can't be accurately argued that Gardner resurrected the term from the dead and therefor Gardnerians can lay claim to that term. Just a thought. :weirdsmil

First of all, it's been a while since I've read Leland, and I haven't encountered Tolkien's use of the term in any of the works I've read by him. Could you please cite an example or two from each of them so that I can reference the works myself? Thanks.

Secondly, even if you are correct on the sources (and I have no reason to doubt you), I'm not sure what exactly your point is. I'm merely trying to say that if you arrive at the use of the word independently from Gardner, you can make a claim to the use of the word, which of course would include Leland. However, I often encounter people that have a practice based off of people who have based their practices off of Gardner's work, however warped (Valiente, Cunningham, and even Conway). Yet when someone raises questions about legitimacy, many of them immediately bring in the historicity of the word as if they were more spiritually descended from Middle English practices than Neo-Wicca.

[Izrail]

First of all, it's been a while since I've read Leland, and I haven't encountered Tolkien's use of the term in any of the works I've read by him. Could you please cite an example or two from each of them so that I can reference the works myself? Thanks.

I didn't say Tolkien used it in the works themselves but in his notes. Specifically, in his earliest drafts of The Two Towers, according to his son Christopher. I believe it's volume seven of the History of Middle-Earth in which this is found. Time period during which these notes would have been made is roughly 1942.

The first mention of the term by Leland that I came across when going back to look for this is in chapter four his Gypsy Sorcery and Fortune Telling (1891), though I seem to recall other mentions of this as well.


Secondly, even if you are correct on the sources (and I have no reason to doubt you), I'm not sure what exactly your point is. I'm merely trying to say that if you arrive at the use of the word independently from Gardner, you can make a claim to the use of the word, which of course would include Leland. However, I often encounter people that have a practice based off of people who have based their practices off of Gardner's work, however warped (Valiente, Cunningham, and even Conway). Yet when someone raises questions about legitimacy, many of them immediately bring in the historicity of the word as if they were more spiritually descended from Middle English practices than Neo-Wicca.

If I read the second half of your post, I believe we may have struck an accord. That is, if in that last sentence you're trying to express that neither Gardnerians nor "Neo-Wiccans" have more of a claim to being "spiritually descended from Middle English practices." If so, I'm puzzled as to why some people see a divide between "wiccans" and "neo-wiccans." In my humble, and perhaps somewhat misinformed opinion, unless one is from a long, long family line of wicca, they're neo-wiccan at least if you can subscribe to Isaac Bonewits's description of paganism (http://www.neopagan.net/PaganDefs.html) and can apply a similar logic to "wicca."

I personally just try to avoid the mess altogether by applying the term "witch" to myself. [shrug] But, as an English geek, I felt the need to speak up about the term "wicca." hehe

[Amythyst]

I am such a free spirit in the realm of "spirituality" that I cannot be closeted or categorized by anyone...some have tried and they have failed.

For the record, I have done a self-initiation ritual...You can find it in, "Witchcraft: Theory & Practice" by Ly de Angeles. It is incredibly beautiful, inspiring, and it was a most moving experience...a solitary endeavor, a "coming out" ceremony to celebrate with the universe on a cosmic level. I highly recommend it.

But did I need to be initiated to be Wiccan? to practice witchcraft? to believe what I believe? to follow the path destined for me?

I think not.

Did the haggard old crone, living her solitary life in her humble cottage, practicing her craft from instinct, or perhaps from knowledge passed down from grandmother to daughter to granddaughter...Did she need a formal initiation to know what she was, to practice her Craft?

I think not.

We should remember that all of these "rules", these "traditions", are more modern than the Craft itself, which is timeless. They were compiled and composed by ordinary people living ordinary lives in ordinary times.

I suppose, for those who are more comfortable with "structure", who feel the need for rules and guidelines, who don't mind authority hanging over their heads whilst they practice their Craft, for those people, I suppose a formal "initiation" is essential, welcome, almost necessary.

But not for me.

[Simply Puzzled]

I am such a free spirit in the realm of "spirituality" that I cannot be closeted or categorized by anyone...some have tried and they have failed.

Good for you.



But did I need to be initiated to be Wiccan? to practice witchcraft? to believe what I believe? to follow the path destined for me?

I think not.


You seem to be under the impression that we are saying you need initiation to lend validity to your beliefs and then (correctly) disagreeing with that statement. While I do believe you need an initiation to enter into a particular group, no one is saying that initiation is required for belief or practice.


Did the haggard old crone, living her solitary life in her humble cottage, practicing her craft from instinct, or perhaps from knowledge passed down from grandmother to daughter to granddaughter...Did she need a formal initiation to know what she was, to practice her Craft?

I think not.


Well, that's a really vague statement. Which crone? Which path? What culture? We know that in many cultures and many practices there were formal initiation rites. In others, there weren't. In either case, your example is irrelevant to our particular case. If the crone claimed membership in a group that had an initiation rite, she would need the initiation rite. If she didn't, then she didn't. Again, no one is saying "you can't practice herbal magic unless you are Wiccan." I'm simply saying what I believe is required to be a Wiccan.


We should remember that all of these "rules", these "traditions", are more modern than the Craft itself, which is timeless. They were compiled and composed by ordinary people living ordinary lives in ordinary times.

I suppose, for those who are more comfortable with "structure", who feel the need for rules and guidelines, who don't mind authority hanging over their heads whilst they practice their Craft, for those people, I suppose a formal "initiation" is essential, welcome, almost necessary.

But not for me.

If you have such disdain for a group, why would you claim membership in their ranks in the first place?

[Ben Gruagach]

Sorry to post a bit off topic for this thread but I wanted to add a few bits regarding the use of the word Wicca.

I just got my copy of the new edition of Mike Howard's magazine, "The Cauldron" (issue #126, Nov 2007.) In the article "The Coven of Atho" there is some mention of non-Gardnerian witches who were active in Gardner's time who also sometimes used the word Wiccan or Wiccen to refer to themselves. ("The Cauldron" is available through Mike Howard's website, http://www.the-cauldron.fsnet.co.uk/ )

It's not clear though whether they adopted the term after hearing it used by Gardner, or if they used it independently of Gardner.

Lewis Spence's popular book, "An Encyclopedia of the Occult", which was published first in 1920, mentions Wicca at the start of the entry on witchcraft. Gardner and others practicing at the time could have easily picked up the term there as well.

[Ben Gruagach]

You seem to be under the impression that we are saying you need initiation to lend validity to your beliefs and then (correctly) disagreeing with that statement. While I do believe you need an initiation to enter into a particular group, no one is saying that initiation is required for belief or practice.

Sorry, but saying that initiation is required to be considered a "real" Wiccan does sound a lot like initiation is required for belief or practice.

I don't know anyone who has challenged that initiation should be required to become a Gardnerian Wiccan, or an Alexandrian Wiccan, etc. but that is quite different from challenging whether initiation is required to be Wiccan in the first place.