A question about defining wicca

[ravynbynorthwynd]

I believe in a god and goddess as manifestations of many gods and goddesses (duoistic-polytheist). i do not follow the rede, as what may harm one, can do good to other and vice versa, and all actions do harm and good simultaineously. i do not believe in the rule of three, however i do think that energy i send out comes back. however, it does not make sense that energy, being a thing of sepcific quantities that cannot be created or destoryed, would come back thrice. i believe it comes back once, in and effort to retain equlity.

so i guess my question is, what the heck should i call myself? would a pagan witch work the best? or can i continue to call myself wiccan?

[DixieWitch]

you sound like me...and I call myself a Pagan Witch!! But the witch part comes in because I do a little witchcraft here and there!!

[Asthmorte]

or just plain pagan. pagan pride baby!

[BlackMadonna]

I am a traditionalist, and unless you have been initiated into a lineaged Wiccan coven, I would not call you Wiccan. I would call you an eclectic pagan, if you need a label.

[ObsidianShenKa]

Call yourself pagan if your religion does not concern the Abrahamic god.

Call yourself neopagan if your religion is Wiccanesque.

Call yourself Wiccan if you adopt most or all of the precepts of Wicca by whatever definition you give it.

Call yourself a witch if you are a skilled practitioner of magic.

[Gede]

MM~
In what context do you believe defining yourself will benefit you? Yes it may add to the luxury of adhering to a specific spirituality and feed your psyche with the affirmed tendency to label and partake in such categorisations. But living a Pagan spirituality is something that is not necessarily devoted to particulars, nor is it always broad or blurred, it can, at times, be very narrow and focused. When you are sure that you desire a label, a word or term in which to convey your sense of self, or just for the sake of convenience when in discussion just make sure that you aren't being too overbearing with what you attach to yourself. Sometimes simplicity is the key.

My beliefs are very similar to yours, and while I respect the Wiccan religion and indeed find myself very attracted to its principles, I do not identify myself as such. If talking to another, or introducing myself and the topic of spirituality comes up I will generally call myself 'Pagan', and sometimes if the situation permits 'Witch'. Boths words resonate within me and I have grown close to what they encompass to me. So perhaps it's a matter of how you relate to the word itself, its history, its etymology and its culture.

Namaste, Gede...

[dr_zeus440]

i do not follow the rede...would a pagan witch work the best? or can i continue to call myself wiccan?

if you dont follow the rede, your not wiccan. but thats neither here nor there. outside of that, call yourself what you want.

[ObsidianShenKa]

I'm reminded of a quote that used to be in Fideal's sig, I believe.


"The rede ain't mine, so I'll not heed it,
I'll hex the crap outta them that need it."
-Patti, from the AOL Wicca Board

[MorningDove030202]

Reguarding your comment about the rule of three and the Wiccan Rede

I agree it makes no sence, however different Traditions of Wicca interpret it differently. My tradition teaches that it means, your lesson will repeat it'self as many times as you need to learn from it. (Doesn't that explain alot! LOL)


The wiccan rede does alow for self defence.......

Bide the wiccan law ye must,
In perfect Love, In perfect Trust.
Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:
And ye harm none, do what thou will.
Lest in thy self-defense it be,
Ever mind the rule of three.
Follow this with mind and heart,
and Merry ye meet... and Merry ye part.

So, if you want to be Wiccan, it's probably a matter of finding a tradition that matches your views of the Rede and the Law of Three.

Dove

[teishabee]

I am a traditionalist, and unless you have been initiated into a lineaged Wiccan coven, I would not call you Wiccan. I would call you an eclectic pagan, if you need a label.
It seems people forget that is the definition of a wiccan.

[ravynbynorthwynd]

MM~
In what context do you believe defining yourself will benefit you? Yes it may add to the luxury of adhering to a specific spirituality and feed your psyche with the affirmed tendency to label and partake in such categorisations. But living a Pagan spirituality is something that is not necessarily devoted to particulars, nor is it always broad or blurred, it can, at times, be very narrow and focused. When you are sure that you desire a label, a word or term in which to convey your sense of self, or just for the sake of convenience when in discussion just make sure that you aren't being too overbearing with what you attach to yourself. Sometimes simplicity is the key.

My beliefs are very similar to yours, and while I respect the Wiccan religion and indeed find myself very attracted to its principles, I do not identify myself as such. If talking to another, or introducing myself and the topic of spirituality comes up I will generally call myself 'Pagan', and sometimes if the situation permits 'Witch'. Boths words resonate within me and I have grown close to what they encompass to me. So perhaps it's a matter of how you relate to the word itself, its history, its etymology and its culture.

Namaste, Gede...
in defining myself to others when it comes to religion.

thanks all for your help, sometimes these terms become confusing.

[WildChild]

Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill:
And ye harm none, do what thou will.
Lest in thy self-defense it be,
Ever mind the rule of three.
Follow this with mind and heart,
and Merry ye meet... and Merry ye part.

That's not part of the original Wiccan Rede, is it? :eyebrow: Did someone in your tradition rewrite this portion of the Rede?

[ObsidianShenKa]

No, no, it's definitely rewritten. Sounds like something out of a Silver Ravenwolf book, actually.

You can find a copy of the original Rede here (http://davensjournal.com/obsidian/Essays/redebgon.html) (along with my commentary :evilway: )

[Druchii]

I believe in a god and goddess as manifestations of many gods and goddesses (duoistic-polytheist). i do not follow the rede, as what may harm one, can do good to other and vice versa, and all actions do harm and good simultaineously. i do not believe in the rule of three, however i do think that energy i send out comes back. however, it does not make sense that energy, being a thing of sepcific quantities that cannot be created or destoryed, would come back thrice. i believe it comes back once, in and effort to retain equlity.

so i guess my question is, what the heck should i call myself? would a pagan witch work the best? or can i continue to call myself wiccan?


Pagan.
At least that works for me.

[Pan]

As the others have said, you can't really call yourself Wiccan if you don't follow the fundamentals of their belief system.

The Rede is one of the main things. Three-fold law is another. If you don't follow those, I can't really see how you can call yourself Wiccan. However, pagan would work if you need to label yourself as anything.

It's kind of like being a Christian and not believing in Christ. Fundamentals!

[fay]

I am a traditionalist, and unless you have been initiated into a lineaged Wiccan coven, I would not call you Wiccan. I would call you an eclectic pagan, if you need a label.


It seems people forget that is the definition of a wiccan.

does that mean that i shouldnt call myself wiccan? i follow wicca and agree with the whole belief system (inc the rede etc) but i am not a member of a coven as i dont know of any. at the moment i call myself a solitary wiccan.
just wondering what you thought.
blessed be

[teishabee]

Call yourself what you will. Just different fview points.If you feel comfortable with that title.I am no one to say you shouldnt.

I just think people confuse terms alot and are too quick to decide the're wiccan.

[Tullip Troll]

Hate Titles...but when you wanna say what you do, how do you make it short...

SOmetimes I say I am Pagan (mostly)
Sometimes I say Im Just a witch
SOemtimes I say I am rogue witch

I think it's safe to call your self Pagan if you really don't follow a set path that is recognized by more then one.

As far as calling your self a Christian wiccan Shaman Druid...(thats just an example of one of the tiltles I find dweeby) I don't like it...It's ok to say your into or interested in but that doesn't make you one...as I feel you are what you practise not what you read.

MheraPai

All that said I can understand why some people need the long titles because they need to express all that they are into in one go...But I think Pagan Covers it if your that multi pathed

[Ben Trismegistus]

if you dont follow the rede, your not wiccan. but thats neither here nor there. outside of that, call yourself what you want.
WRONGO! Most of us Wiccans think the Wiccan Rede is a load of crap. It's certainly not the litmus test for defining whether you are or are not a Wiccan.

Basically, you're a Wiccan if you a) believe in Deity as a balance between two polarities, and b) engaged in a Wiccan style of ritual practice. There, done.

[Erincelt]

Okay, I think Ben pretty well said what I wanted to, but I wanted to add a couple things.

First, don't get the Wiccan Rede (a small, simple statement, usually in eight words of Edwardian Middle English) confused with the Credo Of The Wiccae (a semi-lengthy poem written in the 70's which popularized the Rede).

Second, don't make the all too common mistake of thinking that the Rede means, as Cunningham unfortunately seemed to think, the same as Harm None. It absolutely does not. It means that what does not harm is always acceptable. What does harm is up to you to judge for yourself.

Third (guess this makes it a few things instead of a couple) not all Wiccans buy into the Three bit, or at least not literally. Many of us believe just as you said, that the energy comes back like ripples in a pond, but no more than what went in (Law of Conservation of Energy and all that).

So hey, you sound like you would "qualify" to pursue the title of Wiccan if you want. If you don't want, then that's fine too. Good luck in whatever case. :)

[Ben Gruagach]

Okay, I think Ben pretty well said what I wanted to, but I wanted to add a couple things.

First, don't get the Wiccan Rede (a small, simple statement, usually in eight words of Edwardian Middle English) confused with the Credo Of The Wiccae (a semi-lengthy poem written in the 70's which popularized the Rede).

Correct, partially. The Wiccan Rede is the eight word phrase, "An it harm none, do what you will" (or some variation of that.) The longer poem most people talk about as being the Wiccan Rede is actually called "The Rede of the Wiccae" (yup, with the odd spelling of Wicca) and was introduced to the world by Lady Gwen Thompson back in the 1960s.

There is an interesting discussion of the Wiccan Rede and the Rede of the Wiccae poem at http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/rede3.shtml


Second, don't make the all too common mistake of thinking that the Rede means, as Cunningham unfortunately seemed to think, the same as Harm None. It absolutely does not. It means that what does not harm is always acceptable. What does harm is up to you to judge for yourself.

That's an excellent way to describe it. I personally think a lot of people dismiss the Wiccan Rede because they're only looking at it in a shallow way. It's also frequently pointed out (but more often forgotten, it seems) that the word "rede" means "advice" and not "commandment." The Wiccan Rede then is advice that we should strive to do as little harm as possible and implicit in that is the idea that we are responsible for the consequences of our decisions. We can certainly do harm, but must be willing to bear the results of our actions. And refraining from acting in some circumstances could result in greater harm -- sometimes to minimize harm we have to choose the lesser of the evils and do some active harm ourselves!


Third (guess this makes it a few things instead of a couple) not all Wiccans buy into the Three bit, or at least not literally. Many of us believe just as you said, that the energy comes back like ripples in a pond, but no more than what went in (Law of Conservation of Energy and all that).

So hey, you sound like you would "qualify" to pursue the title of Wiccan if you want. If you don't want, then that's fine too. Good luck in whatever case. :)

As a Wiccan myself, I don't think that results coming back as a result of my decisions can necessarily be quantized as three or five or any specific number. I just see the threefold law as another way of saying "everything is connected, and actions produce results." If I do something (or refrain from doing something... that's still an option) there are always consequences. I can't do something and expect there to never be consequences. Action=reaction is a law of physics.

Hindu philosophy calls this idea karma. And again it's not just the oversimplified idea that if you suffer in this life it's some sort of retribution for past life misdeeds. That "karmic debt" thing can be part of it, but it's more about actions having results more than anything. Results can be either good, bad, or neutral -- karma isn't automatically good or bad the way some people paint it.

And while Gerald Gardner did mention both the threefold law idea and the Wiccan Rede idea (although not the "eight word" phrasing) these particular ideas didn't seem to really become widespread as central in Wiccan thought until the 1960s and later. And as Ben T. mentioned there are many Wiccans who don't feel the need to include either of these as central parts of their Wiccan philosophy. That's one of the strengths of Wicca (at least as I see it) -- we are a community that respects individual autonomy. Covens and individuals are free to decide for themselves what to believe and what to do. Some complain about this as being "anything goes" Wicca which they clearly dislike, but that very freedom is what has allowed the various traditions to spring up in the first place. If it weren't so, then I doubt Alexandrians or any traditions except explicitly Gardnerian lineaged ones would be allowed to be considered part of Wicca.

[Erincelt]

The longer poem most people talk about as being the Wiccan Rede is actually called "The Rede of the Wiccae" (yup, with the odd spelling of Wicca) and was introduced to the world by Lady Gwen Thompson back in the 1960s. Oops. I could swear there is one called "Credo" as I'm sure I ran across it before as well... it must have been a later work, probably deriving from the older one. Ah well, point still stands. :) And I believe the odd spelling comes from someone thinking it would be cute to render a plural of Wicca as if it were a Latin word ("-a" Latin 1st declension singular >> "-ae" Latin 1st declension plural). Just a pet theory.

[Ben Gruagach]

Oops. I could swear there is one called "Credo" as I'm sure I ran across it before as well... it must have been a later work, probably deriving from the older one. Ah well, point still stands. :) And I believe the odd spelling comes from someone thinking it would be cute to render a plural of Wicca as if it were a Latin word ("-a" Latin 1st declension singular >> "-ae" Latin 1st declension plural). Just a pet theory.

I'm sure you're right -- the name "Wiccan Credo" sounds familiar to me too. It's an easy slip to make.

And I think you are right about the spelling anomaly for Wicca. I chalk it up to yet another attempt to make something relatively new sound older (you know, more "traditional") by throwing in some archaic phrasing and spelling.

[DebLipp]

Okay, I think Ben pretty well said what I wanted to, but I wanted to add a couple things.

First, don't get the Wiccan Rede (a small, simple statement, usually in eight words of Edwardian Middle English) confused with the Credo Of The Wiccae (a semi-lengthy poem written in the 70's which popularized the Rede).

Second, don't make the all too common mistake of thinking that the Rede means, as Cunningham unfortunately seemed to think, the same as Harm None. It absolutely does not. It means that what does not harm is always acceptable. What does harm is up to you to judge for yourself.

Third (guess this makes it a few things instead of a couple) not all Wiccans buy into the Three bit, or at least not literally. Many of us believe just as you said, that the energy comes back like ripples in a pond, but no more than what went in (Law of Conservation of Energy and all that).

So hey, you sound like you would "qualify" to pursue the title of Wiccan if you want. If you don't want, then that's fine too. Good luck in whatever case. :)

Beautifully said.

I want to say this very clearly, so people get it, because it has been asked and answered many times:

Wicca is OLDER than the Wiccan Rede!

Logically, then, the Rede cannot be a test of whether or not one is Wiccan. It's just a saying. A bit of advise and philosophy.

As to the rule of three, Buckland made it up in the early 70s. I researched this extensively with some other major serious researchers and that's the conclusion we came to.

It is ridiculous, and childish, for initiatory traditions to claim exclusive ownership of the word "Witch" or "Wiccan," just as it is ridiculous and childish for modern Witches and Wiccans to protest movies like THE WITCHES OF EASTWICK. No one owns the word. You shouldn't call yourself a Gardnerian or an Alexandrian if you're not one, but it has been a long, long time since initiatory trads were the only game in town, and most of us who leave the house from time to time have noticed that. In fact, it is doubly ridiculous to claim that traditionalists own the word "Wiccan" since most of us were taught to call ourselves "Witches" not "Wiccans."

Ben T. gives the best rule of thumb for how to decide if you want to call yourself Wiccan.

[DebLipp]

And while Gerald Gardner did mention both the threefold law idea and the Wiccan Rede idea .

Ben, everything you posted here was great except this. Gardner mentioned a 3fold law but it is NOTHING like what people talk about as "the law of 3." Gardner's law was prescriptive not descriptive. It was Ray Buckland who turned the 3fold law into some kind of souped-up karma.

[BlackMadonna]

does that mean that i shouldnt call myself wiccan? i follow wicca and agree with the whole belief system (inc the rede etc) but i am not a member of a coven as i dont know of any. at the moment i call myself a solitary wiccan.
just wondering what you thought.
blessed be

You can call yourself anything, however, I would not call you a Wiccan. My definition of a Wiccan is someone who has been initiated into a lineaged Wiccan Tradition.
The title "Wiccan" has been hi-jacked and does not mean what many newcomers to the Craft thinks it means. I realize, of course, that not many will agree with me, since the term has been carelessly used for many years now.

[Ben Gruagach]

Ben, everything you posted here was great except this. Gardner mentioned a 3fold law but it is NOTHING like what people talk about as "the law of 3." Gardner's law was prescriptive not descriptive. It was Ray Buckland who turned the 3fold law into some kind of souped-up karma.

I'm actually on the road at the moment so I don't have my normal library of books to consult but I fully expect you're correct. I was sort of "winging it" on the threefold law but I'm much more confident regarding my statement about the Wiccan Rede and the Rede of the Wiccae because I've done a lot more specific research on them.

Personally though I do think that the threefold law as Gardner and the others at the start presented it actually does come from Hindu philosophy, rather than the Hindu philosophy part coming into it later on courtesy of Ray Buckland. Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s occultism in the English speaking world drew heavily from India for its sources. Theosophy, for instance, was largely about introducing "eastern" philosophy to the west and blending the two. The Golden Dawn drew heavily from India. There's lots of talk about karma in particular in many of the sources that Gardner is known to have drawn from (I believe Dion Fortune is a good example... but again I don't have my books handy at the moment to confirm that.)

And if Philip Heselton is correct in his book "Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration" then Gardner did have a direct connection to the Golden Dawn through one of the "elders" in the group that initiated him into Wicca. Crowley is another obvious source of eastern ideas that we know Gardner was familiar with.

So I'm more inclined to think that Gardner got the threefold return idea from Indian sources and then "gussied it up" a bit to make it look like it was traditional and English, rather than to believe that the Indian influence on it came in later on with Ray Buckland.

But then that would throw some new monkeywrenches into everything, wouldn't it? There are always more questions raised the more research we do. Answer one question, find three more questions we didn't know about! It's the threefold return at work, I tells ya!

Deb -- do you have an essay link or book that explains the prescriptive v descriptive explanation? I've heard that statement before but I'd like to find out more about how it's explained.

[DebLipp]

Deb -- do you have an essay link or book that explains the prescriptive v descriptive explanation? I've heard that statement before but I'd like to find out more about how it's explained.

I can't find a good link on the web at the moment. I think it might be in Witchcraft: A Concise Guide, but I'm not sure. Here's a couple of suggestive links:
http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/3fl-3.shtml

http://crypt.eldritchs.com/wicca/3foldlaw.html

[MorningDove030202]

That's not part of the original Wiccan Rede, is it? :eyebrow: Did someone in your tradition rewrite this portion of the Rede?

No, it's not Correllian, and I think it's older than Silver Raven Wolf, because I first read it before her books came out, if I remember correctly. (That would be somewhere in the mid 1990s, posibly 95 or 96.) I would love to know the orgins of this copy of the Rede.

Dove

[DebLipp]

No, it's not Correllian, and I think it's older than Silver Raven Wolf, because I first read it before her books came out, if I remember correctly. (That would be somewhere in the mid 1990s, posibly 95 or 96.) I would love to know the orgins of this copy of the Rede.

Dove

Ben G. has already posted accurate information on the poem's source. I'll add that, to the best of my knowlede, Lady Gwen was an Alexandrian.

[WildChild]

The version that Dove posted was not the original poem written by Lady Gwen; it had been revised/rewritten by someone in more recent years.

[Ben Gruagach]

I can't find a good link on the web at the moment. I think it might be in Witchcraft: A Concise Guide, but I'm not sure. Here's a couple of suggestive links:
http://www.waningmoon.com/ethics/3fl-3.shtml

http://crypt.eldritchs.com/wicca/3foldlaw.html

Thanks. I have "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide" too so I'll look through that as well.

[Ben Trismegistus]

You can call yourself anything, however, I would not call you a Wiccan. My definition of a Wiccan is someone who has been initiated into a lineaged Wiccan Tradition.
The title "Wiccan" has been hi-jacked and does not mean what many newcomers to the Craft thinks it means. I realize, of course, that not many will agree with me, since the term has been carelessly used for many years now.
While I can understand that definition, it's rather narrow. If we restrict Wicca to only those initiated into lineaged Wiccan Traditions, it would be a very small religion and would have little or no chance of surviving in the long term. Like it or not, Wicca has grown beyond the bounds of its initiatory roots. Initiatory Traditions now make up only one part of the whole of Wicca. And while I agree with you that the term "Wiccan" has been hijacked, and many use the term without knowing what it entails, I no longer think that a degree initiation is necessary to call oneself a Wiccan.

[Ben Gruagach]

While I can understand that definition, it's rather narrow. If we restrict Wicca to only those initiated into lineaged Wiccan Traditions, it would be a very small religion and would have little or no chance of surviving in the long term. Like it or not, Wicca has grown beyond the bounds of its initiatory roots. Initiatory Traditions now make up only one part of the whole of Wicca. And while I agree with you that the term "Wiccan" has been hijacked, and many use the term without knowing what it entails, I no longer think that a degree initiation is necessary to call oneself a Wiccan.

If the narrow "lineage initiatory tradition" definition were used as the only valid one then it would mean the Alexandrians aren't Wiccans. Only Gardnerians and their direct offshoots (with authentic verifiable lineage of course) would count.

I also think saying that the term Wicca has been "hijacked" is rather extreme. Other people can be Wiccan even if you don't agree with everything they do. Part of the problem (which I actually consider one of Wicca's greatest strengths) is that we don't have a central authority, no Pope or official scripture, so that means whether any of us like it or not it is unlikely there will ever be anything like an official definition of Wicca.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I also think saying that the term Wicca has been "hijacked" is rather extreme. Other people can be Wiccan even if you don't agree with everything they do. Part of the problem (which I actually consider one of Wicca's greatest strengths) is that we don't have a central authority, no Pope or official scripture, so that means whether any of us like it or not it is unlikely there will ever be anything like an official definition of Wicca.
I've got a pretty wide-reaching net for what counts as Wicca. I embrace the theological and practical diversity that eclecticism has brought to Wicca. But even considering that, there are people out there calling themselves Wiccan who are WAY out there.

"I'm Wiccan, but I don't believe in gods."

"I'm Wiccan, but I don't do any rituals."

Those are two really big things that I've seen on a number of occasions. Even with there being no official definition, surely there are a few things we can agree on as a group.

[Ben Gruagach]

I've got a pretty wide-reaching net for what counts as Wicca. I embrace the theological and practical diversity that eclecticism has brought to Wicca. But even considering that, there are people out there calling themselves Wiccan who are WAY out there.

"I'm Wiccan, but I don't believe in gods."

"I'm Wiccan, but I don't do any rituals."

Those are two really big things that I've seen on a number of occasions. Even with there being no official definition, surely there are a few things we can agree on as a group.

We can individually have whatever definitions and limits we like, and we can most certainly try to come together as a community and see if we can come up with some sort of common ground definition. But we have to be honest too and admit that setting up an official definition means establishing an authority (which I suspect would be VERY controversial for many Wiccans.)

I personally see where you're coming from with the two examples of people who sometimes call themselves Wiccan but who don't qualify by your particular definition. It makes me wonder though why those two examples should be considered absolute.

Is there no room for Wiccans who are agnostic (who aren't sure about the existence of deities) or who might be atheists but are Wiccan in every other way? I know in the Christian community there are plenty of people who are either atheist or agnostic who are still considered by their own communities to be Christians.

The example of rituals is another one that is problematic because it opens up the can of worms about what constitutes a ritual. Are Wiccans required to perform specific rituals? Which ones? How must they be performed? Are Wiccans who perform those rituals in different ways not Wiccan then? What about if they don't do some of those "required" rituals as often as others? Who is to decide (that old authority problem again) what the required rituals, frequency, and methods will be?

Does praying count as ritual? What forms of prayer count? How long do the prayers have to be, and do specific words have to be recited? I think you get my drift. It's a messy question that we should examine carefully before we are ready to make sweeping statements about who is or isn't a "real" Wiccan.

Personally, the core of Wicca for me is outlined in the Principles of Wiccan Belief, the Wiccan Rede (An it harm none, do what you will), and the message in the Charge of the Goddess. And even in those everything is open to interpretation. But that's what I consider the core of my personal Wiccan philosophy and I realize other Wiccans have their own core. And that's perfectly all right with me because it's about my relationship with the Divine and that's what counts for me.

[dr_zeus440]

WRONGO! Most of us Wiccans think the Wiccan Rede is a load of crap. It's certainly not the litmus test for defining whether you are or are not a Wiccan.

Basically, you're a Wiccan if you a) believe in Deity as a balance between two polarities, and b) engaged in a Wiccan style of ritual practice. There, done.

hmm, i can see where youre coming from, but i dont like the definition, just my opinion, its too broad and yet, in some cases, restrictive at the same time. what about those who work with pantheons or a pantheon or a small set of patrons, as opposed to the goose and goosess (specifically people who arent recons but dont believe that 'all are facets of the...two')? or some aspects of dianic wicca that focus on the female side of the polarity (thus eliminating the concept of a balanced pair)? obviously, there's no way around the wiccan style of ritual practice...except what exactly is a wiccan style of ritual practice, key word being ritual. can a person be a wiccan without engaging in ritual? does spellwork count as ritual (keeping in mind that not all spellwork is, for lack of a better word, ritualised i.e. relatively set out in its stages, casting circle, raising the cone etc.) i think (a) is too restrictive, and (b) is too broad [edit: obviously, ben G goes way more into detail on this than i do]. i dunno, its entirely possible that im just misunderstanding you.


While I can understand that definition, it's rather narrow. If we restrict Wicca to only those initiated into lineaged Wiccan Traditions, it would be a very small religion and would have little or no chance of surviving in the long term. Like it or not, Wicca has grown beyond the bounds of its initiatory roots. Initiatory Traditions now make up only one part of the whole of Wicca. And while I agree with you that the term "Wiccan" has been hijacked, and many use the term without knowing what it entails, I no longer think that a degree initiation is necessary to call oneself a Wiccan.

its hard to disagree with your idea that the definition of wicca has changed, and that saying that all wiccans must be lineaged to be wiccans is hard line, but theres still something to the argument that lineage is important in the definition. id go so far as to suggest that there is more than one type of wicca(n) (no, i dont mean tradition, i mean type). there's the more orthodox wicca (i.e. gardnerian and alexandrian, you have to be lineaged and covenbaked etc.), reformed wicca (wiccan style ritual, divine polarity, im not so sure about this one, but i have a nagging feeling there'd definitely be a type between orthodox and eclectic) and the last group, eclectic wicca (rede, law of three).

two things have become painfully obvious: i need to learn more about the history of wicca before i develop this idea further, and that the middle group is immensely undefined. your thoughts anyone? please, feel free to debunk me completely, but i really think that 'wiccan' belief has become so varied it needs more than one single definition (even if the model of three is complete and utter crap). in many cases, the uniting factor is a recognition that your belief has a root in gardners wicca, but that hardly seems like a definition.


it would be a very small religion and would have little or no chance of surviving in the long term.

aah, but this requires that one forms ones definition with a sympathetic allowance for the survival of the defined, which could compromise the resulting definition.

anyway, im interested on your thoughts and ideas on the three types thing...but go gentle, its an infant idea :)

[Ben Trismegistus]

Well look... if absolutely anyone can call themselves Wiccan, with no requirements whatsoever, then the term itself is entirely meaningless and it's ridiculous for us to even pretend that we have any sort of community whatsoever.

Maybe *I'm* the one with the problem -- imagining a Wiccan community where none actually exists.

[dr_zeus440]

hmm, philosophical :) sad fact is that theres a whole bunch of wiccans/"wiccans" out there who approach the issue and who would reply "anyone can call themselves a wiccan" thus bringing about the inevitable meaninglessness. id venture a guess that if the popularization of wicca continues and enters into mainstream culture, then the "anyone and everyone" attitude will drive a lot of people from the religion. but thats neither here nor there.

[Ben Gruagach]

Well look... if absolutely anyone can call themselves Wiccan, with no requirements whatsoever, then the term itself is entirely meaningless and it's ridiculous for us to even pretend that we have any sort of community whatsoever.

Maybe *I'm* the one with the problem -- imagining a Wiccan community where none actually exists.

Personally I think part of the problem is the human desire to have everything with neat and tidy labels that are easy to identify and apply. Life is messy. It doesn't always conform to the tidy labels.

Community is an expression of life -- it is often messy, hard to define, but is most definitely (and in my opinion gloriously) there. Yes, there is something called Wiccan but I think it's more a cloud where there are some on the periphery who are part of the community but where the labels get harder and harder to justify in absolute terms. It's the same in other communities. In the gay community we have come to realize that things like the Kinsey scale make more sense than some arbitrary imposed rule that people must be 100% gay or 100% straight for the community to exist. It's OK to be somewhere other than 100% on the spectrum -- and it's also OK to shift around a bit as you go through life.

Labels are definitely helpful because they serve as cores of meaning around which we anchor our lives. But we have to also allow ourselves the freedom to be flexible, to dance the individual dances of our own individual lives, to relate to the Divine in ways that are not necessarily identical to how our brothers and sisters in the community express their relationships with the Divine. Is the important thing the individual relationship with the Divine, or is it some sort of conformity to an arbitrary definition for a label?

The person who invents a new word has the privilege of establishing an authoritative definition for that new label if that is what they wish to do. In the case of Wicca, Gardner presented the religion as an intact pre-Christian faith that he was merely passing on. He also acknowledged that since he was just passing on what he had learned from others (supposedly, anyway) then it was possible for there to be others out there too who could be Wiccan as well even without formal connections to him. And that made it difficult to put the genie back in the bottle when others started to come forward, with no formal connection to Gardner or his people, and also claim to be Wiccan.

No one ever promised that being a Wiccan, a Witch, a Pagan, or even just a human being would be easy. If they did promise easy answers to everything then they lied. Labels are tools that we use but they are not the thing themselves. They can be used to create separations but we must be sure that we are using them consciously and are willing to accept the responsibility for the consequences.

[BlackMadonna]

While I can understand that definition, it's rather narrow. If we restrict Wicca to only those initiated into lineaged Wiccan Traditions, it would be a very small religion and would have little or no chance of surviving in the long term.

Unlike the convoluted mismash of misunderstood ideas calling itself Wicca now? I agree it is a narrow term. I dare say an Asatru would not like to be lumped into a general and greater category of Wicca. They are allowed to follow their 'narrow' path, why should I open my lineaged tradition to the broad brush?



Like it or not, Wicca has grown beyond the bounds of its initiatory roots. Initiatory Traditions now make up only one part of the whole of Wicca.

I would say that the Wiccan Tradition makes up one part of the whole of the alternative spirituality called, for lack of a better term, Paganism.

[Ben Gruagach]

Unlike the convoluted mismash of misunderstood ideas calling itself Wicca now? I agree it is a narrow term. I dare say an Asatru would not like to be lumped into a general and greater category of Wicca. They are allowed to follow their 'narrow' path, why should I open my lineaged tradition to the broad brush?

I would say that the Wiccan Tradition makes up one part of the whole of the alternative spirituality called, for lack of a better term, Paganism.

I'm not sure that anyone is arguing that people who don't self-identify as Wiccan should be lumped in with Wiccans.

I'm also not sure how any single subset of Wicca can claim ownership of the label and try to enforce their own restrictive definition on the larger community.

[BlackMadonna]

I also think saying that the term Wicca has been "hijacked" is rather extreme. Other people can be Wiccan even if you don't agree with everything they do.

Like I have said, you (not personally, but as the general populous) can call yourself whatever you like. Doesn't mean that I acknowledge your title. But I am only one person and a cranky old witch at that. Definitions will keep redefining themselves through the ages long after I am gone.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I'm backing out of this conversation, since I now appearing to be getting it from both sides -- BlackMadonna telling me my definition of Wicca is too broad, and Ben G telling me it's too narrow.

[dr_zeus440]

hmm, three types, the BlackMadonnas, the Ben Ts and the Ben Gs. its a shame that you have to do that Ben T, but thanks for what youve said anyway, given me a lot of food for thought.

[BlackMadonna]

I'm also not sure how any single subset of Wicca can claim ownership of the label and try to enforce their own restrictive definition on the larger community.

I am not enforcing any restictions on any community.

[BlackMadonna]

I'm backing out of this conversation, since I now appearing to be getting it from both sides -- BlackMadonna telling me my definition of Wicca is too broad, and Ben G telling me it's too narrow.

I am sorry you feel this way, since I am not 'giving it to you'. My definition of Wicca is just that. MY definition. I am old school and an old cranky witch (who is beginning to repeat herself. I told you I was old). I am a traditionalist and happy with the work that comes with it.

[mothwench]

Unlike the convoluted mismash of misunderstood ideas calling itself Wicca now? I agree it is a narrow term. I dare say an Asatru would not like to be lumped into a general and greater category of Wicca. They are allowed to follow their 'narrow' path, why should I open my lineaged tradition to the broad brush?

i've been following this thread with some interest, though i'm not wiccan. and what would you suggest to people who simply have no way of being initiated by a coven, what would you suggest they do? say they live in the remote parts of new zealand, for example. would you refuse to acknoledge they are wiccan, even if they had more knowledge of the faith, in theory and practice, than you or any of your hp's and hps's? that seems very narrow-minded.

and here's a bit of an off-topic, but how do you see asatru as being a narrow path? afaik, there's no initiation in asatru at all.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

and here's a bit of an off-topic, but how do you see asatru as being a narrow path? afaik, there's no initiation in asatru at all.

I would wager she is saying it is narrow as in the fact that unlike what Wicca has become Asatru has a very set and finite definition. If someone were to say I'm Asatru but I don't believe in the deities or I don't engage in germanic ritual practice such as symbls (sp?) and blots, they would be laughed out of the place. Unfortunately with Wicca, you don't have that. Anyone can claim to be Wiccan now and they expect that their claim must recognized whether or not they share anything in common with the majority of Wiccans.

Personally I like dr_zeus's concept of the three types of Wicca - Orthodox, which would follow the strict definition that Black Madonna gave it, reformed which would allow for those who aren't part of degreed/lineaged coven to consider themselves Wiccan provided they share the common beliefs of Wicca to be true (duotheism/polarity of deity and ritual pracitice that adheres to both a certain style and certain dates, ie the Esbats and Sabbats), and liberal or eclectic which fits the mode of anything goes. These three definitions make quite a bit of sense and are honestly the best, most honest definitions I've seen for Wicca. It allows for both the hard-liners and the eclectic. I don't see why they couldn't be adopted througout the religion, after all you have reformed, orthodox, etc. Jews. Why can't you have the same differentiations in Wicca.

[BlackMadonna]

i've been following this thread with some interest, though i'm not wiccan. and what would you suggest to people who simply have no way of being initiated by a coven, what would you suggest they do? say they live in the remote parts of new zealand, for example. would you refuse to acknoledge they are wiccan, even if they had more knowledge of the faith, in theory and practice, than you or any of your hp's and hps's? that seems very narrow-minded.

It would not be possible for someone in a remote area, with no coven, to learn more than an initiated high priest or high priestess in my tradition.



and here's a bit of an off-topic, but how do you see asatru as being a narrow path? afaik, there's no initiation in asatru at all.

I do not say the path was narrow, but I would not call a follower of the Asatru religion a Wiccan.

[BlackMadonna]

Personally I like dr_zeus's concept of the three types of Wicca - Orthodox, which would follow the strict definition that Black Madonna gave it, reformed which would allow for those who aren't part of degreed/lineaged coven to consider themselves Wiccan provided they share the common beliefs of Wicca to be true (duotheism/polarity of deity and ritual pracitice that adheres to both a certain style and certain dates, ie the Esbats and Sabbats), and liberal or eclectic which fits the mode of anything goes. These three definitions make quite a bit of sense and are honestly the best, most honest definitions I've seen for Wicca. It allows for both the hard-liners and the eclectic. I don't see why they couldn't be adopted througout the religion, after all you have reformed, orthodox, etc. Jews. Why can't you have the same differentiations in Wicca.

I would cautiously agree with this statment. It does make sense and is an honest reflection of what is happening within the tradition today

[DebLipp]

Personally I like dr_zeus's concept of the three types of Wicca - Orthodox, which would follow the strict definition that Black Madonna gave it, reformed which would allow for those who aren't part of degreed/lineaged coven to consider themselves Wiccan provided they share the common beliefs of Wicca to be true (duotheism/polarity of deity and ritual pracitice that adheres to both a certain style and certain dates, ie the Esbats and Sabbats), and liberal or eclectic which fits the mode of anything goes. These three definitions make quite a bit of sense and are honestly the best, most honest definitions I've seen for Wicca. It allows for both the hard-liners and the eclectic. I don't see why they couldn't be adopted througout the religion, after all you have reformed, orthodox, etc. Jews. Why can't you have the same differentiations in Wicca.

Two of these ARE in fairly common usage. Most people who are freefrom Wiccan recognize themselves as Eclectic Wiccan and call themselves such. Traditionalists like me call ourselves Traditionalist Wiccans (or by the tradition's name) with a great deal of consistency. The "reform" area in the middle is hard to define. Traditional-style practitioners who are not members of a tradition will come up with their own terminology, although I have often heard exactly that explanation.

As to "I don't see why they couldn't be adopted througout the religion" it's sort of a silly question. Who would determine such terms are to be adopted, and who would enforce it? What authority would vote on it, and where would the "ruling" be published? You see, as these things are used by PEOPLE, they will come to be recognized by people. In language, usage is king. No one voted that "gay" would no longer used to mean "lighthearted and happy" but usage changed.

Enforced definitions are always problematic, especially in religion. This isn't unique to Wicca or Paganism. There are people who make up what they are in every religion because none of the definitions fit. You will see these EXACT sort of definitional struggles in Christianity and Judaism (I could go on at length with examples, but I'll spare you). You find it in Native American traditions as well. It's just the nature of the beast. You can't stop people from calling themselves what they call themselves. Usage is the only thing that matters in the end.

[BlackMadonna]

You can't stop people from calling themselves what they call themselves. Usage is the only thing that matters in the end.

Agreed

[mothwench]

It would not be possible for someone in a remote area, with no coven, to learn more than an initiated high priest or high priestess in my tradition.

you're avoiding the question. would you say they aren't wiccan, just cause they weren't initiated, even if they followed the sabbats and did the rituals and were very learned on their path?



I do not say the path was narrow, but I would not call a follower of the Asatru religion a Wiccan.
well, no, obviously. it's just, i could have sworn i read something along the lines of they (refering to asatru) are allowed to follow their 'narrow' path, why should I ...

[Ben Trismegistus]

Personally I like dr_zeus's concept of the three types of Wicca - Orthodox, which would follow the strict definition that Black Madonna gave it, reformed which would allow for those who aren't part of degreed/lineaged coven to consider themselves Wiccan provided they share the common beliefs of Wicca to be true (duotheism/polarity of deity and ritual pracitice that adheres to both a certain style and certain dates, ie the Esbats and Sabbats), and liberal or eclectic which fits the mode of anything goes. These three definitions make quite a bit of sense and are honestly the best, most honest definitions I've seen for Wicca. It allows for both the hard-liners and the eclectic. I don't see why they couldn't be adopted througout the religion, after all you have reformed, orthodox, etc. Jews. Why can't you have the same differentiations in Wicca.
The problem is that, as Ben G says, Wicca defies definition no matter how much you sincerely wish there could be *some* sort of standard. Take me for example:

I'm an initiated member of a lineaged coven. I'm seven generations removed from Gerald Gardner, and I've got the paperwork to prove it. HOWEVER, my tradition (Minoan/NorthStar) branched off from Gardnerianism in the 1970s, and therefore my own ritual practice is more on the liberal/eclectic side, although it is still heavily Gardnerian. So already, I'm blurring the lines between those three levels of Wicca.

So, without any central body saying what Wicca is and isn't (as Ben G says), we've got no shot at forming a definition of Wicca outside of one's own personal opinions. So why bother?

[DebLipp]

I'm an initiated member of a lineaged coven. I'm seven generations removed from Gerald Gardner, and I've got the paperwork to prove it.

I'm FOUR generations removed. Nanny nanny poo poo.

Seriously, you think THIS is bad, you should see the fights WITHIN Gardnerianism (I don't think Minoans are privvy to the really nasty stuff). :bouncysmi

[BlackMadonna]

you're avoiding the question. would you say they aren't wiccan, just cause they weren't initiated, even if they followed the sabbats and did the rituals and were very learned on their path?

Yes, I am saying that. There is more than just following the sabbats and rituals and being very learned, in my tradition.



well, no, obviously. it's just, i could have sworn i read something along the lines of they (refering to asatru) are allowed to follow their 'narrow' path, why should I ...

I stand corrected. The definition is narrow, not the path.

[BlackMadonna]

I'm FOUR generations removed. Nanny nanny poo poo.

Seriously, you think THIS is bad, you should see the fights WITHIN Gardnerianism (I don't think Minoans are privvy to the really nasty stuff). :bouncysmi

You said a mouthful.

[mothwench]

Yes, I am saying that. There is more than just following the sabbats and rituals and being very learned, in my tradition.

so people in remote areas have no chance at wicca? tough s**t, as it were. ? :confused:

[Ben Trismegistus]

I'm FOUR generations removed. Nanny nanny poo poo.

Seriously, you think THIS is bad, you should see the fights WITHIN Gardnerianism (I don't think Minoans are privvy to the really nasty stuff). :bouncysmi
I could tell you stories about the Minoans, trust me. There's a reason why we're now "NorthStar" and no longer technically "Minoan".

[Erebus]

Just from my own observations from this discussion and other similar ones, I think the term "Wicca" is so broad as to be meaningless. Everyone who claims to be Wiccan is a Wiccan. There is no longer a common thread of belief or tenet involved. One god, two gods, 17.3 gods, no gods, infinite gods, reincarnation, heaven, hell, summerlands, valhalla, elysian fields, post-death non-existence, ghosts, no ghosts, fairies, no fairies, angels, no angels, magic, magick, no magic/k... all of these could be the beliefs of a legitimate Wiccan.

My opinion is that as soon as the common thread is lost, the term means nothing. Wicca has encompassed every possible theological belief. You cannot determine any part of what a person believes in based their religion being Wicca. If every Wiccan could concievably be totally different, and still Wiccan, then there is no "Wicca" as a whole. Wicca has become a blanket term that is at least as general as then term "paganism", and could probably be used interchangably with it at this point.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Why bother Ben T.? Because I like neat tidy little definitions. :bigredgri

As for who would adopt the terms, Deb, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean some central authority should just decree that these are the words/definitions that you all must use and go about enforcing such. I meant that the people, those who call themselves Wiccan, adopt the terms themselves so that they do become wide-spread and part of common-usage. Personally I don't like the term Traditionalist which is commonly used to refer to lineaged Wiccans due to the confusion it causes with traditional witchcraft, which I find to be quite different. Especially when there are many people who use the term witch and Wiccan interchangably, which is why I think orthodox is a more apt descriptor. I also think that eclectic is much over-used hence the alternate definition of liberal. If you stop and think about it, Wicca at it's very core is eclectic, pulling from many different sources from its beginnings. So to call one's self an eclectic Wiccan sounds more than a bit redundant to me, it just doesn't make sense. I think liberal is more applicable because it implies that those who could be placed in the category of liberal pull not only from Wicca to form their path, but from many others as well. The other two categories seem to me to follow a much stricter line, even with their differences.

[DebLipp]

you're avoiding the question. would you say they aren't wiccan, just cause they weren't initiated, even if they followed the sabbats and did the rituals and were very learned on their path?


What you have to understand, mothwench, is how definitions were used until quite recently, and what the intent of calling someone "Wiccan" was.

In Gardner's writings, he makes very clear that "in the old times" the Witches were a priesthood who were called to the service of the Lord & Lady, and the rest of the community were Pagans. His charming pseudo-history was, those who knew him think, meant as a model for the future of Wicca.

I was trained in a "Pagan Way." Non-initiates in that group were called Pagans, even though the way we practiced was very traditionally Wiccan. Only initiates were Witches. In those days, we rarely used the word "Wiccan" to describe ourselves. In fact, I have never heard anyone say that the word "Wiccan" was reserved for initiates prior to this conversation; it was always "Witch" and "Pagan."

Needless to say, the Wiccan movement grew enormous up around our ears, and that changed. 20 years ago, I suggested to my teacher that perhaps "Wiccan" was a word that could be used for Pagans practicing in a Wiccan manner, and that "Witch" was the word we would avoid using in the Pagan Way. She didn't care for that. :)

In recent years, more and more people have begun to practice non-Wiccan eclectic Paganism, so that keeping the word Wiccan away from non-initiates would rob them of a valuable and meaningful distinction.

But what I wanted to post before I got sidetracked typing up all this ancient history was that the issue of isolated Pagans without teachers has never been material. Traditionalists believe deeply that "when the student is ready, the teacher will come." It doesn't matter if you're in an Arctic research station, the very day that the Gods decide you should become an initiate, a teacher will appear. No one is being deprived of ANYTHING; the Gods will find a way.

[DebLipp]

Just from my own observations from this discussion and other similar ones, I think the term "Wicca" is so broad as to be meaningless. Everyone who claims to be Wiccan is a Wiccan. There is no longer a common thread of belief or tenet involved. One god, two gods, 17.3 gods, no gods, infinite gods, reincarnation, heaven, hell, summerlands, valhalla, elysian fields, post-death non-existence, ghosts, no ghosts, fairies, no fairies, angels, no angels, magic, magick, no magic/k... all of these could be the beliefs of a legitimate Wiccan.

My opinion is that as soon as the common thread is lost, the term means nothing. Wicca has encompassed every possible theological belief. You cannot determine any part of what a person believes in based their religion being Wicca. If every Wiccan could concievably be totally different, and still Wiccan, then there is no "Wicca" as a whole. Wicca has become a blanket term that is at least as general as then term "paganism", and could probably be used interchangably with it at this point.

Not all religions are defined by belief. Ben T. and I had this discussion recently. Judaism is defined by practice and by tribe, not by belief. You can be an atheist and still be a good Jew. I am comfortable with a practice-based definition of Wicca.

[DebLipp]

Why bother Ben T.? Because I like neat tidy little definitions. :bigredgri

As for who would adopt the terms, Deb, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean some central authority should just decree that these are the words/definitions that you all must use and go about enforcing such. I meant that the people, those who call themselves Wiccan, adopt the terms themselves so that they do become wide-spread and part of common-usage. Personally I don't like the term Traditionalist which is commonly used to refer to lineaged Wiccans due to the confusion it causes with traditional witchcraft, which I find to be quite different. Especially when there are many people who use the term witch and Wiccan interchangably, which is why I think orthodox is a more apt descriptor. I also think that eclectic is much over-used hence the alternate definition of liberal. If you stop and think about it, Wicca at it's very core is eclectic, pulling from many different sources from its beginnings. So to call one's self an eclectic Wiccan sounds more than a bit redundant to me, it just doesn't make sense. I think liberal is more applicable because it implies that those who could be placed in the category of liberal pull not only from Wicca to form their path, but from many others as well. The other two categories seem to me to follow a much stricter line, even with their differences.

But as I said, usage is king. The common usage is that liberal Wiccans call themselves Eclectic, which certainly makes sense in the US, where "liberal" has other connotations. The use of Traditionalist predates the use of "traditional" to apply to Cochrane's tradition, and FamTrads are FamTrads and rarely if ever leap in to define themselves at all. I am happy to call myself a Traditionalist Wiccan, whereas Cochrane's traditionalists call themselves witches but not Wiccan, so that's a clear distinction. Orthodox is an unpleasant word in a lot of ways, with societal implications that most Wiccans would reject. I have been called an Orthodox Gardnerian (in contrast, you understand, to Reformed Gardnerians) but the problem with Orthodoxy is it does sound like someone is wrong and someone is right, even if it isn't meant that way.

I'll stick with the words everyone I know has been using for all these years. :) :)

[Ben Gruagach]

I would wager she is saying it is narrow as in the fact that unlike what Wicca has become Asatru has a very set and finite definition. If someone were to say I'm Asatru but I don't believe in the deities or I don't engage in germanic ritual practice such as symbls (sp?) and blots, they would be laughed out of the place. Unfortunately with Wicca, you don't have that. Anyone can claim to be Wiccan now and they expect that their claim must recognized whether or not they share anything in common with the majority of Wiccans.

When we look at the history of Wicca this has actually been one of those perennial debates. Back in the 1960s Gardnerians had a real problem with considering Alexandrians to be "real Wiccans" because after all they weren't Gardnerians. Robert Cochrane didn't consider Gardnerians to be "real Wiccans" (or as he would have probably put it, "real Witches") because he thought Gardner was a sham. Others have said Cochrane is not a "real Witch" (or "real Wiccan" -- back when Wiccan and Witch were considered interchangeable) because while he claimed to be from a hereditary tradition he could never prove it. The whole "grandmother story" idea has been around for a long time in Wicca and has always been presented (when we were supposed to believe it anyways) as proof that so-and-so was a "real Wiccan" unlike those other types there.

Even back before Gardner, in the era of cunning men and wise women, the standard practice seemed to be that whichever cunning man or wise woman you were talking to at the time would claim they were the real deal, and their competitors were the "witches" (i.e. the bad people) who were charlatans and dabbling in all sorts of bad stuff that the cunning man/ wise woman could just happen to help protect you from.

As they say, history keeps repeating, repeating, repeating. I doubt we'll ever be done with debates about who are the "real" whatevers. Christians and Jews still debate these things too in their own communities.


Personally I like dr_zeus's concept of the three types of Wicca - Orthodox, which would follow the strict definition that Black Madonna gave it, reformed which would allow for those who aren't part of degreed/lineaged coven to consider themselves Wiccan provided they share the common beliefs of Wicca to be true (duotheism/polarity of deity and ritual pracitice that adheres to both a certain style and certain dates, ie the Esbats and Sabbats), and liberal or eclectic which fits the mode of anything goes. These three definitions make quite a bit of sense and are honestly the best, most honest definitions I've seen for Wicca. It allows for both the hard-liners and the eclectic. I don't see why they couldn't be adopted througout the religion, after all you have reformed, orthodox, etc. Jews. Why can't you have the same differentiations in Wicca.

I like that idea of orthodox, reformed, and liberal too. It allows those who want to be exclusionary to be so, and at the same time it allows for the larger community to also recognize those who are more eclectic. If it were up to a vote I'd vote for this way of describing the community!

[BlackMadonna]

But what I wanted to post before I got sidetracked typing up all this ancient history was that the issue of isolated Pagans without teachers has never been material. Traditionalists believe deeply that "when the student is ready, the teacher will come." It doesn't matter if you're in an Arctic research station, the very day that the Gods decide you should become an initiate, a teacher will appear. No one is being deprived of ANYTHING; the Gods will find a way.

The lady speaks true. When one is ready, the teacher will come. And in ways most interesting, to say the least.

[mothwench]

What you have to understand, mothwench, is how definitions were used until quite recently, and what the intent of calling someone "Wiccan" was.

In Gardner's writings, he makes very clear that "in the old times" the Witches were a priesthood who were called to the service of the Lord & Lady, and the rest of the community were Pagans. His charming pseudo-history was, those who knew him think, meant as a model for the future of Wicca.

I was trained in a "Pagan Way." Non-initiates in that group were called Pagans, even though the way we practiced was very traditionally Wiccan. Only initiates were Witches. In those days, we rarely used the word "Wiccan" to describe ourselves. In fact, I have never heard anyone say that the word "Wiccan" was reserved for initiates prior to this conversation; it was always "Witch" and "Pagan."

Needless to say, the Wiccan movement grew enormous up around our ears, and that changed. 20 years ago, I suggested to my teacher that perhaps "Wiccan" was a word that could be used for Pagans practicing in a Wiccan manner, and that "Witch" was the word we would avoid using in the Pagan Way. She didn't care for that. :)

In recent years, more and more people have begun to practice non-Wiccan eclectic Paganism, so that keeping the word Wiccan away from non-initiates would rob them of a valuable and meaningful distinction.

But what I wanted to post before I got sidetracked typing up all this ancient history was that the issue of isolated Pagans without teachers has never been material. Traditionalists believe deeply that "when the student is ready, the teacher will come." It doesn't matter if you're in an Arctic research station, the very day that the Gods decide you should become an initiate, a teacher will appear. No one is being deprived of ANYTHING; the Gods will find a way.


*blinks* :foh: well, that's quite alot of news for me to digest, you know, i was interested in wicca when i first learnt about it, and i had never heard that before. do most people who are starting out in wicca know this? cause in the time i was thinking about wicca as a possible spirituality, i was sure i would have to teach myself pretty much everything. there are simply no wiccans around me, at least not the initiated teachers, if there are any, they're either gothy teenagers who watched the craft, or people who well, yeah, have read the books and follow the sabbats. it's just kind of sad, in a way i always thought the wiccan community was a strong one, an open-armed one, if you know what i mean. and i was very happy for you all when i read that e.g. wicca is one of the fastest growing religions... it was comforting to see that with all crap going on in the world, there is actually one movement i can approve of.
but how can i as an outsider approve when the very people inside are disapproving and feeling threatened in their elite status?

btw, this wasn't aimed at you, deblipp. :smile: and thanks for all that info, i really didn't know it was so complex.


edited to add: i'm beginning to understand what HD was getting so uppity about.

[DebLipp]

*blinks* :foh: well, that's quite alot of news for me to digest, you know, i was interested in wicca when i first learnt about it, and i had never heard that before. do most people who are starting out in wicca know this? cause in the time i was thinking about wicca as a possible spirituality, i was sure i would have to teach myself pretty much everything. there are simply no wiccans around me, at least not the initiated teachers, if there are any, they're either gothy teenagers who watched the craft, or people who well, yeah, have read the books and follow the sabbats. it's just kind of sad, in a way i always thought the wiccan community was a strong one, an open-armed one, if you know what i mean. and i was very happy for you all when i read that e.g. wicca is one of the fastest growing religions... it was comforting to see that with all crap going on in the world, there is actually one movement i can approve of.
but how can i as an outsider approve when the very people inside are disapproving and feeling threatened in their elite status?

btw, this wasn't aimed at you, deblipp. :smile: and thanks for all that info, i really didn't know it was so complex.

Well, I've been accused of being elitist before... ;)

It's not an elite status, it's a path. If it's your path, it finds you. If it's not, it doesn't. I grew up Jewish. I don't believe that rabbis are more elite than other Jews. It's just their path. I don't think I'm more elite for being a published author, and I don't think my son is more elite for being a talented tap dancer. It's just what we are.

I want Wicca to be accessible to everyone who wants it. I celebrate the diversity of the Wiccan community. I am happy to see people creating traditions and doing it themselves, although I deplore the no-nothing attitude some people have. Tradition and teaching and apprenticeship have deep value; they're underrated IMO.

But as to, do most people know that? Growth exceeds knowledge. Most of the newbies I meet online read 3 websites and decided they were Wiccan. Then they put up websites of their own. So no, OF COURSE they don't know that. They don't know much! But if they actually read the classics of the field, if they studied it, they would know. That's not a lot to expect, is it? In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, yes, everyone knew it. The Internet promulgates a lack of knowledge. If 30 websites say exactly the same thing, well, you've read THIRTY ferchrissakes, how many more do you need to read?

[mothwench]

Well, I've been accused of being elitist before... ;)

It's not an elite status, it's a path. If it's your path, it finds you. If it's not, it doesn't. I grew up Jewish. I don't believe that rabbis are more elite than other Jews. It's just their path. I don't think I'm more elite for being a published author, and I don't think my son is more elite for being a talented tap dancer. It's just what we are.

I want Wicca to be accessible to everyone who wants it. I celebrate the diversity of the Wiccan community. I am happy to see people creating traditions and doing it themselves, although I deplore the no-nothing attitude some people have. Tradition and teaching and apprenticeship have deep value; they're underrated IMO.

But as to, do most people know that? Growth exceeds knowledge. Most of the newbies I meet online read 3 websites and decided they were Wiccan. Then they put up websites of their own. So no, OF COURSE they don't know that. They don't know much! But if they actually read the classics of the field, if they studied it, they would know. That's not a lot to expect, is it? In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, yes, everyone knew it. The Internet promulgates a lack of knowledge. If 30 websites say exactly the same thing, well, you've read THIRTY ferchrissakes, how many more do you need to read?
haha, yeah, i've seen some websites like that. :lol: but when do you start calling yourself wiccan, if not from the start when you set out on your path?

ps: boy am i glad i decided *not* to be wiccan. i'd feel gutted, right now. :twitch:

[BlackMadonna]

but how can i as an outsider approve when the very people inside are disapproving and feeling threatened in their elite status?

Are you judging the whole Wiccan and Pagan community based on a few comments in a forum? No one here is disapproving of anyone else. I certainly don't disapprove of you. I do not know you. I am not feeling threatened in any way, as well. My elite status (if one needs to call it that) is within my coven and not within this forum. I would offer a suggestion to relax. You are not being judged.

[Erebus]

Not all religions are defined by belief. Ben T. and I had this discussion recently. Judaism is defined by practice and by tribe, not by belief. You can be an atheist and still be a good Jew. I am comfortable with a practice-based definition of Wicca.

So what are the common practices of Wicca? There are people who call themselves Wiccans who don't use magic, who only observe the four sabbats, who only observe the four esbats, who observice Christian holidays exclusively, who ignore the moon entirely, who worship the moon religiously, who cast circles, who don't cast circles, who participate in initiations, who don't participate in initiations.... etc.

[mothwench]

Are you judging the whole Wiccan and Pagan community based on a few comments in a forum?
well, no. just the wiccan community, not the pagan one. ;)

You are not being judged.
i never said i felt judged. i was just wondering what i would do out in the sticks in europe if i wanted to become wiccan, is all.

[Ben Gruagach]

well, no. just the wiccan community, not the pagan one. ;)

i never said i felt judged. i was just wondering what i would do out in the sticks in europe if i wanted to become wiccan, is all.

I hope that you're not judging the Wiccan community, or even a specific sect within the Wiccan community, based on what you might see on one website. Even when that website is as wonderful as MysticWicks here.

If you are looking for others in your area (Wiccan, non-Wiccan, whatever Pagan path you are looking for) one of the absolute best places to check is http://www.witchvox.com/

And if there isn't much in your area listed you might want to consider creating a listing for yourself. That way others who are also looking can find you!

You can also create a Yahoo group on the web to help Pagans in your area connect. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/ and search there first to see if there is something already, and if there isn't you can create one for free.

Sometimes the way to find out about the people in your area is to take the first step in letting others know you exist.

[mothwench]

I hope that you're not judging the Wiccan community, or even a specific sect within the Wiccan community, based on what you might see on one website. Even when that website is as wonderful as MysticWicks here.
no, i was joking when i said that. hence the ;)

If you are looking for others in your area (Wiccan, non-Wiccan, whatever Pagan path you are looking for) one of the absolute best places to check is http://www.witchvox.com/
i've been there, and i've also done this:

And if there isn't much in your area listed you might want to consider creating a listing for yourself. That way others who are also looking can find you!


You can also create a Yahoo group on the web to help Pagans in your area connect. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/ and search there first to see if there is something already, and if there isn't you can create one for free.
that might have been a good idea, though i've got a list at another site. anyway, it really doesn't matter anymore, cause wicca's not my thing, and right now i'm doing just completely my own thing which other people probably wouldn't want to know about, so :fpeace:
sometimes though, the complexity of what i'm doing overwhelms me and i (very briefly :p ) do consider turning back to wicca. but that's because i thought it would be more simple and flexible, and it turns out i was wrong.

[DebLipp]

haha, yeah, i've seen some websites like that. :lol: but when do you start calling yourself wiccan, if not from the start when you set out on your path?

ps: boy am i glad i decided *not* to be wiccan. i'd feel gutted, right now. :twitch:

I think it's up to newbies to learn. I also think it's up to oldies to adapt. How I was trained 20 years ago is not the be-all end-all.

[Ben Gruagach]

no, i was joking when i said that. hence the ;)


I figured that but just wanted to be sure.

And regarding creating a Yahoo group to find others:

that might have been a good idea, though i've got a list at another site. anyway, it really doesn't matter anymore, cause wicca's not my thing, and right now i'm doing just completely my own thing which other people probably wouldn't want to know about, so :fpeace:
sometimes though, the complexity of what i'm doing overwhelms me and i (very briefly :p ) do consider turning back to wicca. but that's because i thought it would be more simple and flexible, and it turns out i was wrong.

Witchvox is actually a wonderful resource for the whole Pagan community and not just witches or Wiccans (although there are a lot of us Wiccans and witches there!) Because it gets so much traffic it's a good place to post notices about any sort of Pagan group or event that needs to be noticed by those who are searching.

You could always start up a Yahoo group for Pagans in your area and that way you can just meet with other Pagans regardless of their particular tradition, and share ideas and maybe even make some great friends. There isn't a rule that all groups have to be covens or hard-core working groups or training groups either. Social groups that just meet for coffee and chatting are great too!

http://www.meetup.com/ is another way to find out about groups that meet in your area based on particular interests (Paganism, occultism, witchcraft, magick, whatever.) If you create a Meetup or Yahoo group though, be sure to also create a listing for it in Witchvox to let people know about it. The more places it's mentioned the better chances you have that people will find out about the group.

[DebLipp]

So what are the common practices of Wicca? There are people who call themselves Wiccans who don't use magic, who only observe the four sabbats, who only observe the four esbats, who observice Christian holidays exclusively, who ignore the moon entirely, who worship the moon religiously, who cast circles, who don't cast circles, who participate in initiations, who don't participate in initiations.... etc.

When it comes to practice, I'd be more persnickety.

A Wiccan might or might not practice magic as an individual, but would accept it as a normative practice for Wiccans.

Wiccans cast circles and call quarters.

Wiccans use 4 or 5 elements.

Wiccans practice a polarity-based system which worship the Lady and Lord, or a Lady and Lord. If a Wiccan is polytheistic, that Wiccan is still setting up a ritual with a Goddess and God on the altar.

Wiccans acknowledge the 8 sabbats and 13 full moons as the observances of a Wiccan year. They might not actually observe all of them (just as a Jew might not fast on Yom Kippur or a Christian might skip church of a Sunday) but they acknowledge them as part of their religion.

Wiccans acknowledge some form of immanent deity.

I would seriously question anyone who didn't accept the above who said they were Wiccan.

[Calen]

Oh, how I adore these threads...
I agree that adopting the orthodox-reformed-eclectic/liberal terms would be a good thing. If the larger community (a healthy number from each of those three groups) could accept those terms, everyone would be able to follow their own path and yet be part of a highly varied yet supportive community, being what they are and not constantly hounded for redefinitions. But then, despite the unavoidable differences of opinion, I’d like to think that's more or less what we have here! :)
I agree with what Ben_G said about spirituality being about your relationship with the Divine, and not labels. Sure, neat, tidy terms (so beloved by Morag ^.^) help when explaining yourself to others, but for me, labels always seemed, in a sneaky sort of way, to be more about trying to make myself feel as though I fit. I thought myself Wiccan at one point, but then came to the realization that while it may currently be a 'wide brush' sort of term, I wasn't one, and had no desire to irritate others by claiming to be one. I don't even call myself a witch, because while that's the path I am walking, I know I am not nearly experienced or knowledgeable enough to use the title. See, some newbies do think about that kind of thing! ;)
Despite my do-my-own-thing-osity though, I definitely will be looking into making a listing on witchvox. What I will describe myself as though, that’s another question!
And to Ben_G, Ben_T, and DebLipp in particular, I love reading these things because you educated know-what-your-on-about types comment in them, and I always learn a lot. That there are people out there who seem to have such a great understanding of their craft and themselves in relation to it is one of the things that inspires me in my own studies, modest though they are! :)

[mothwench]

http://www.meetup.com/ is another way to find out about groups that meet in your area based on particular interests (Paganism, occultism, witchcraft, magick, whatever.) If you create a Meetup or Yahoo group though, be sure to also create a listing for it in Witchvox to let people know about it. The more places it's mentioned the better chances you have that people will find out about the group.
cool site, thanks. :smile:

[Calen]

[QUOTE=mothwench] and right now i'm doing just completely my own thing which other people probably wouldn't want to know about /QUOTE]

I'd be interested, if you ever wanted to post anything in the Paths forum...:D

edited...
heh, wow. i'm not even going to *try* to make that look like a proper quote-majiggy. :ugh:

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

[QUOTE=mothwench] and right now i'm doing just completely my own thing which other people probably wouldn't want to know about /QUOTE]

I'd be interested, if you ever wanted to post anything in the Paths forum...:D

edited...
heh, wow. i'm not even going to *try* to make that look like a proper quote-majiggy. :ugh:

Actually, I don't think you want to know. She's an eclectic germanic reconstructionist. ~shudders~ Love you mothy. :bigredgri

Also, the label comment I made earlier was a joke. Just playful teasing. :smile:

[dr_zeus440]

But as I said, usage is king.

then ekcetera is a word.

[mothwench]

Actually, I don't think you want to know. She's an eclectic germanic reconstructionist. ~shudders~ Love you mothy. :bigredgri


:nyah: actually, just eclectic reconstructionist, unless you consider the scottish celts in some way germanic... :viking:

anyway... to clarify, cause it is a bit of a contradiction in terms really:
this path is about finding yourself, primarily. it's a one-person thing, meaning i'm doomed to be solitary in what i do. i was considering starting a thread in paths about it, but then i thought, what's the point, if there's nothing in it for other people?
basically i'm trying to find out what kind of spirituality my ancestors would have, and because i'm binational (my mum is german and my dad is british) it incorporates more than just one culture. but yeah, germanic is not far off, cause of german influence from my mum's side, and the fact that my dad is half english, half scottish, so i've got the anglo-saxons to consider. it's alot of homework and not much ritual, well, no ritual at all, really, but that's fine with me cause i always felt a bit funny regarding ritual anyway.


right then. enough off-topicness for today. sorry about derailing the thread again. :p

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Since when was it Scottish? You always seemed so much more interested in the germanic tribes...hrm, I obviously missed something.

[mothwench]

phooey, i posted on your scots recon thread! :foh: i've just not been pursueing it that much lately, mainly cause the heathenry class drew me in so much... that and a sudden infatuation with runes, if you'll remember. :lol:

edited to add: my gran was from dunfermline, if your wondering what part of scotland i'm interested in.

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Ahhh, and you're frustrated cause I never finished my thread aren't you? :eyez: That's okay, you can admit it. :T

[mothwench]

Ahhh, and you're frustrated cause I never finished my thread aren't you? :eyez: That's okay, you can admit it. :T
*whacks mòrag round the head with a rubber chicken* well... yeah! what ever happened to that thread, huh? :lol:

[Mòrag Elasaid Ní Dhòmhnaill]

Hey, no beatings with rubber chickens! My rubber chicken objects. :razz:

I will work on it as I have time. Don't have that now...notice I only post when I'm at work now. :shhhh:

[Erincelt]

At a time when I was exploring paths, I began studying Buddhism. I was told, "You are Buddhist when you decide you are Buddhist... though you might not be a very good Buddhist." To one extent or another, I think this attitude is one worth considering. And for the record, I never did decide I was Buddhist. Zennist yes, Buddhist no.

[DebLipp]

At a time when I was exploring paths, I began studying Buddhism. I was told, "You are Buddhist when you decide you are Buddhist... though you might not be a very good Buddhist." To one extent or another, I think this attitude is one worth considering. And for the record, I never did decide I was Buddhist. Zennist yes, Buddhist no.

Indeed. I think this is fairly true. I am careful not to call myself a Hindu because I worship Hindu gods but do not follow most of the precepts of Hindu faith—I am not an initiate, do not follow a guru, etc.

In traditional Wicca (i.e. Gardnerian, Alexandrian), the word "Pagan" is the word that corresponds to "Buddhist" in your statement, whereas the word "Wiccan" would sort of correspond to the phrase "Buddhist monk." This, I think, is what people like BlackMadonna are alluding to—anyone can say they are a Buddhist, but if you say you're a Buddhist monk and you don't have the robe and the begging bowl, well.... :hmmmmm:

But like I've said, language changes. Most people don't accept that usage anymore.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Indeed. I think this is fairly true. I am careful not to call myself a Hindu because I worship Hindu gods but do not follow most of the precepts of Hindu faith—I am not an initiate, do not follow a guru, etc.

In traditional Wicca (i.e. Gardnerian, Alexandrian), the word "Pagan" is the word that corresponds to "Buddhist" in your statement, whereas the word "Wiccan" would sort of correspond to the phrase "Buddhist monk." This, I think, is what people like BlackMadonna are alluding to—anyone can say they are a Buddhist, but if you say you're a Buddhist monk and you don't have the robe and the begging bowl, well.... :hmmmmm:
But this is assuming that people (Wiccans, for instance) actually put some thought into what a label actually means before they start using it for themselves.

[Ben Gruagach]

Indeed. I think this is fairly true. I am careful not to call myself a Hindu because I worship Hindu gods but do not follow most of the precepts of Hindu faith—I am not an initiate, do not follow a guru, etc.

In traditional Wicca (i.e. Gardnerian, Alexandrian), the word "Pagan" is the word that corresponds to "Buddhist" in your statement, whereas the word "Wiccan" would sort of correspond to the phrase "Buddhist monk." This, I think, is what people like BlackMadonna are alluding to—anyone can say they are a Buddhist, but if you say you're a Buddhist monk and you don't have the robe and the begging bowl, well.... :hmmmmm:

But like I've said, language changes. Most people don't accept that usage anymore.

I understand the usage you've described but I don't think there's much evidence that it took hold in any widespread way.

On the other hand, the term Wicca has taken hold as the label for the modern religion that traces back (either directly or indirectly) to Gardner. People who have a lineage to Gardner can claim to be Wiccan. People who derive at least the main points of their religion from Gardner and his descendants (Valiente, Buckland, Cunningham, etc.) also have been calling themselves Wiccan for quite some time even if they don't have that lineage of initiations.

I understand that in the UK (although I don't know if this is true or not) there was a tendency to reserve the word Wiccan for only people who were Gardnerian, Alexandrian, or a few traditions directly related to them. Everyone else was called Pagan no matter how orthodox they were in following Gardnerian ideas, so long as they didn't have that initiation.

The problem with using the word Pagan to refer to Wiccans without formal lineage initiations is that Pagan already means a lot more than just uninitiated Wiccan. It confuses things a lot because Pagan also covers so many other non-Wiccan religions like Druidry in all its variants, Voudou, etc.

People who are clergy for established Wiccan sects do have perfectly good titles already for themselves -- i.e. third degree Gardnerian Wiccan, second degree Alexandrian Wiccan, etc. Wicca, in many cases anyways, presents itself as "religion without the middleman" where all are essentially clergy anyways. So drawing distinctions between Wiccan clergy and Wiccan congregants doesn't make a lot of sense. The degree system, or a way of acknowledging elders within a sect, makes a lot more sense than insisting on going with the monotheistic clergy model.

Personally, I wish we would also stop using the term "traditional" to refer to groups with established systems and hierarchies within Wicca. It is a misleading term that implies an extended history to ancient times that isn't necessarily there. It would be more accurate to call it sectarian Wicca rather than traditional Wicca. Sects that are established yesterday, then, can be easily (and correctly) identified in that grouping without implying any false claim to ancient lineage.

It's the same with calling Wicca "The Old Religion." It's romantic, and inspiring, but it might be just a tad misleading. We can be more honest than that. I read somewhere a description of Wicca as "a modern tree with ancient roots." That struck me as a much more honest, yet equally romantic, way of describing it.

[DebLipp]

I understand the usage you've described but I don't think there's much evidence that it took hold in any widespread way.

On the other hand, the term Wicca has taken hold as the label for the modern religion that traces back (either directly or indirectly) to Gardner. People who have a lineage to Gardner can claim to be Wiccan. People who derive at least the main points of their religion from Gardner and his descendants (Valiente, Buckland, Cunningham, etc.) also have been calling themselves Wiccan for quite some time even if they don't have that lineage of initiations.

I understand that in the UK (although I don't know if this is true or not) there was a tendency to reserve the word Wiccan for only people who were Gardnerian, Alexandrian, or a few traditions directly related to them. Everyone else was called Pagan no matter how orthodox they were in following Gardnerian ideas, so long as they didn't have that initiation.

The problem with using the word Pagan to refer to Wiccans without formal lineage initiations is that Pagan already means a lot more than just uninitiated Wiccan. It confuses things a lot because Pagan also covers so many other non-Wiccan religions like Druidry in all its variants, Voudou, etc.

People who are clergy for established Wiccan sects do have perfectly good titles already for themselves -- i.e. third degree Gardnerian Wiccan, second degree Alexandrian Wiccan, etc. Wicca, in many cases anyways, presents itself as "religion without the middleman" where all are essentially clergy anyways. So drawing distinctions between Wiccan clergy and Wiccan congregants doesn't make a lot of sense. The degree system, or a way of acknowledging elders within a sect, makes a lot more sense than insisting on going with the monotheistic clergy model.


I agree with all of this.



Personally, I wish we would also stop using the term "traditional" to refer to groups with established systems and hierarchies within Wicca. It is a misleading term that implies an extended history to ancient times that isn't necessarily there. It would be more accurate to call it sectarian Wicca rather than traditional Wicca. Sects that are established yesterday, then, can be easily (and correctly) identified in that grouping without implying any false claim to ancient lineage.

It's the same with calling Wicca "The Old Religion." It's romantic, and inspiring, but it might be just a tad misleading. We can be more honest than that. I read somewhere a description of Wicca as "a modern tree with ancient roots." That struck me as a much more honest, yet equally romantic, way of describing it.

Not going to work, because then we'd have to stop calling them "Traditions." I try to make a clear distinction in my own writing between captial-T Traditional (meaning of a specific Tradition) and small-t traditional (meaning having a lineage or history or tradition behind it). I realize I am not changing the tide by my own capitalization quirk, but it's what I can do. As long as Gardnerianism is referred to as a Tradition and not a sect, then it makes linguist sense to call it Traditional and not sectarian. (I can't find the SHRUG icon so I'll just pretend it's here).

[Ben Gruagach]

Regarding using the term sectarian Wicca rather than traditional (or Traditional) Wicca:


Not going to work, because then we'd have to stop calling them "Traditions." I try to make a clear distinction in my own writing between captial-T Traditional (meaning of a specific Tradition) and small-t traditional (meaning having a lineage or history or tradition behind it). I realize I am not changing the tide by my own capitalization quirk, but it's what I can do. As long as Gardnerianism is referred to as a Tradition and not a sect, then it makes linguist sense to call it Traditional and not sectarian. (I can't find the SHRUG icon so I'll just pretend it's here).

I expect you're right that people will be reluctant to switch over from using the word tradition (with or without the capital T at the start.) It's entrenched, and it's like the Old Religion thing -- it's romantic and implies an ancient lineage even if it's not there. People like feeling special so it's hard to switch away from something that feels special like that.

But hey, a person can try, can't they? I support you in using the capital T when referring to organized Wiccan groups (so it's Traditional Witchcraft) but I'll at the same time try and use the term sectarian Wicca myself. Perhaps if we use them enough one or the other might actually catch on!

Memes have to start somewhere...

[Edited to add a missing word that helps my sentence make MUCH more sense now!]

[DebLipp]

Go memes!

[Ben Trismegistus]

I expect you're right that people will be reluctant to switch over from using the word tradition (with or without the capital T at the start.) It's entrenched, and it's like the Old Religion thing -- it's romantic and implies an ancient lineage even if it's not there. People like feeling special so it's hard to switch away from something that feels special like that.
Additionally, I'd say that the term sectarian sounds too Christian. You might just as well try to call non-initiatory Wicca "Protestant Wicca".

[Seren_]

You might just as well try to call non-initiatory Wicca "Protestant Wicca".

:woah: It had to happen sooner or later....Don't people tend to call that McWicca these days?

[Ben Gruagach]

Additionally, I'd say that the term sectarian sounds too Christian. You might just as well try to call non-initiatory Wicca "Protestant Wicca".

Some people are just too hung up on rebelling against Christianity.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Some people are just too hung up on rebelling against Christianity.
Well, never having been a Christian, I've got nothing to rebel against. But I can understand wanting separate yourself from the dominant religions, and terminology is a good way to do that.

[MorningDove030202]

Some traditions of Wicca (acutal organized churches with non profit status, regardless of lineage) are not initatory, or they have an outer court that is non initatory, and an inner court that is initatory. This inner court is basicaly the clergy, and the outcourt are not. I feel very comfortable with this system that includes both iniatory education and non iniatory education. It's a nice compromise, because then you can be Wiccan but not seek initation, or you have the choice of doing more study and being initated. Initation may not be for everyone, but Wicca should be available to anyone reguardless of their ability to find a group and be ordained.

Dove

[Ben Gruagach]

Some traditions of Wicca (acutal organized churches with non profit status, regardless of lineage) are not initatory, or they have an outer court that is non initatory, and an inner court that is initatory. This inner court is basicaly the clergy, and the outcourt are not. I feel very comfortable with this system that includes both iniatory education and non iniatory education. It's a nice compromise, because then you can be Wiccan but not seek initation, or you have the choice of doing more study and being initated. Initation may not be for everyone, but Wicca should be available to anyone reguardless of their ability to find a group and be ordained.

Dove

Excellent point. I realized after I posted previously that I might have implied all established Wiccan sects are based on the concept of formal initiations. They aren't. Many do include initiation (at some level anyways) as a feature but that isn't always the case.

And as you've pointed out well there are established groups (DebLipp's Pagan Way example sounds like one) where only specific degrees or ordination training make one a member of the clergy, and the majority of people in the sect are considered the congregation and not necessarily clergy.

[MorningDove030202]

Excellent point. I realized after I posted previously that I might have implied all established Wiccan sects are based on the concept of formal initiations. They aren't. Many do include initiation (at some level anyways) as a feature but that isn't always the case.

And as you've pointed out well there are established groups (DebLipp's Pagan Way example sounds like one) where only specific degrees or ordination training make one a member of the clergy, and the majority of people in the sect are considered the congregation and not necessarily clergy.


The tradition I study, Correllian Wicca, is such a tradition. The most basic level of membership involved taking the first degree class and then at the end, if you pass, performing a self Wiccaning ritual, which then makes you an "Outer Court" member, but not clergy.

I think a basic "congregational membership" is a good option, because even though we don't need clergy as intercessors between us and the Gods, we still need clergy to make hospital visits, prison ministry, to handfast, and to do grief counceling, etc, and not everyone wants to do these parts of the clergy job description.

I also feel in my own path, a moving away from the idea of "High Priest and High Priestes", and more towards a role/title of "Clergy". I see HP and HPS as a ritual role, something you set for a particiular ritual, but can chainge for other rituals, and it's focused just on the members of a coven. For me "Clergy" has less to do with who is in charge of a ritual, and more to do with serving the comunity, not just the coven.

For a very interesting look into one coven's ideas on iniation, I suggest reading "The Heart of Wicca" by Ellen Cannon Reed.

Dove



Dove

[fay]

wow! i lose track of this thread for a few days (ok a week, i just started back at college! :nyah: ) and look what happens! 9 pages to be precise! :p
anyways, just thought id add something to all the people who keep on arguing over how you can define wicca. im not going to pretend to know better than anybody else how to go about this, but i do think it is important to have a definition of wicca. it helps to clarify to yourself and others what you mean. how many people, when asked what wicca is, have replied "its kinda complicated"? i know i have.
at the very least, a definition gives people something to argue against. say we have a general definition that is accepted as what a wiccan is/believes etc. then someone might come along and say "well wait a second, i think this....". i think that it would generally be helpful.
(really not sure if ive made any sense, sorry if i havent)
blessed be

about the protestant thing, i wouldnt like it partly cos people arent protesting about the wiccan faith and trying to change it, theyre just living out their own path. just my two pence ( im english, i dont have cents :nyah: )

[Ben Gruagach]

im not going to pretend to know better than anybody else how to go about this, but i do think it is important to have a definition of wicca. it helps to clarify to yourself and others what you mean. how many people, when asked what wicca is, have replied "its kinda complicated"? i know i have.
at the very least, a definition gives people something to argue against. say we have a general definition that is accepted as what a wiccan is/believes etc. then someone might come along and say "well wait a second, i think this....". i think that it would generally be helpful.

I agree that it is helpful to try and define what our labels mean. The problem comes up when we forget that our definitions are our own, and are not necessarily authoritative.

To me, it's one of those things where the discussion is probably more important than the destination. Being conscious of what our labels mean (and how they can differ for other people) and realizing the definitions can change is more important than establishing some arbitrary "official definition," at least in my opinion.