Gardnerian questions

[Windigo]

is it permitted according to Gardnerian Wicca to use images of Gods for mundane purposes (ex.: decorative purposes, in books designed for educational purposes etc.), with respect in one's heart?

what is the view of afterlife in Gardnerian Wicca? Is there any eternal punishment?

[goDez]

I think that, according to Gardnerian, images of the god are not forbidden or anything.. I couldn't see why as well.

The view of an afterlife is that of the soul transfering to a summerland where it cleanses and prepares for the next life, basicly.

Correct me if i'm wrong tho.

[Seren_]

The general perception of the afterlife is reincarnation, although at one point Gardner wrote The Laws which mentioned that oathbreakers would go to the "Hell of the Christians". (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos38.htm). The Laws were politically motivated, though, and most people I know take this with a pinch of salt. :whatgives

[goDez]

The general perception of the afterlife is reincarnation, although at one point Gardner wrote The Laws which mentioned that oathbreakers would go to the "Hell of the Christians". (http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/gbos/gbos38.htm). The Laws were politically motivated, though, and most people I know take this with a pinch of salt. :whatgives
I got my information from the burrialmemorial/cermony of Dorreen Valiente, (www.doreenvaliente.com) whom was a Gardnerian.

[Seren_]

I got my information from the burrialmemorial/cermony of Dorreen Valiente, (www.doreenvaliente.com) whom was a Gardnerian.

Yeah, I'm not contradicting you or anything. Though I'm not sure if the concept of the Summerlands is universal...my former HPS was quite dismissive of it. But Summerlands or no, there's usually an idea of reincarnation in there somewhere...am I making any sense? It's been a long day :D

[Ben Trismegistus]

is it permitted according to Gardnerian Wicca to use images of Gods for mundane purposes (ex.: decorative purposes, in books designed for educational purposes etc.), with respect in one's heart?
Yes, no reason why not.

what is the view of afterlife in Gardnerian Wicca? Is there any eternal punishment?
There is no codified view among Gardnerians. One's view of the afterlife is subject to one's personal beliefs.

[goDez]

That's a nice unified answer there Ben :)

Well, in that case I just told you my view of an afterlife.. Being a wannabe-Gardnerian and all that :P

(actually i'm just a solitary, interested in the Gardnerian trad.. I haven't found anything on the tradition that contradicts my beliefs.. Which is supposed to be good, right? :))

[Ben Gruagach]

That's a nice unified answer there Ben :)

Well, in that case I just told you my view of an afterlife.. Being a wannabe-Gardnerian and all that :P

(actually i'm just a solitary, interested in the Gardnerian trad.. I haven't found anything on the tradition that contradicts my beliefs.. Which is supposed to be good, right? :))

One thing I think is the case (and the actual Gardnerians here will confirm or deny it for us, I'm sure) is that to be a Gardnerian you must be formally initiated into a verified Gardnerian coven. I'm under the impression that you can't be a Gardnerian alone -- that you must be part of a Gardnerian coven to count as a practicing Gardnerian.

(I'm not Gardnerian myself so I'm just going on what I've read and heard.)

[goDez]

I'm aware of the initiation process BG, don't worry.. Thats why I guess I typed the "wannabe-gardnerian" :)

[Ben Trismegistus]

One thing I think is the case (and the actual Gardnerians here will confirm or deny it for us, I'm sure) is that to be a Gardnerian you must be formally initiated into a verified Gardnerian coven. I'm under the impression that you can't be a Gardnerian alone -- that you must be part of a Gardnerian coven to count as a practicing Gardnerian.

(I'm not Gardnerian myself so I'm just going on what I've read and heard.)
Hmmm. I don't think so. I'd like to see Deb's answer to this, but my personal opinion is that you can be a practicing Gardnerian without being initiated into a Gardnerian coven. If you follow Gardnerian ritual practice, as far as I'm concerned you'd be a Gardnerian. Being initiated into a Gardnerian coven makes you a Gardnerian initiate.

That said, one thing you can't do is call yourself as Gardnerian priest or priestess (or High Priest or High Priestess) without reaching the appropriate degree.

[DebLipp]

Hmmm. I don't think so. I'd like to see Deb's answer to this, but my personal opinion is that you can be a practicing Gardnerian without being initiated into a Gardnerian coven. If you follow Gardnerian ritual practice, as far as I'm concerned you'd be a Gardnerian. Being initiated into a Gardnerian coven makes you a Gardnerian initiate.

That said, one thing you can't do is call yourself as Gardnerian priest or priestess (or High Priest or High Priestess) without reaching the appropriate degree.
How would you know you are practicing Gardnerian rituals if you don't have access to the oathbound material?

I wouldn't acknowledge a non-initiate as a Gardnerian. That doesn't mean that a non-initiate is inferior in any way; it's not a judgement, it's just a reality. I wouldn't acknowledge an apple as a dairy product, but I like apples.

To be a Gardnerian is to be an initiate of a Gardnerian HPS/HP who traces lineage through an original HPS of Gardner, who was initiated in the same way, in a traditional Gardnerian initiation ceremony. To be a Gardnerian is to know certain secrets and to have taken certain Oaths to protect those secrets. Within Gardnerianism, there have been controversies about particulars, but in broad strokes, this is an accurate definition.

A Gardnerian can be solitary. I haven't had a coven for some years now. But a Gardnerian cannot become Gardnerian without initiation by another Gardnerian.

[Ben Trismegistus]

How would you know you are practicing Gardnerian rituals if you don't have access to the oathbound material?
Hm. You've got a good point there.

[Kern]

What exactly seperates Gardnerians from Alexandrians and other Wiccans?

[Morgandria]

Well, I'd say that first off they're the "original" Wiccans. The Gardnerians came first. Wicca would not be as it is today if they hadn't been. Each tradition that has come after it has made their own changes to what they do and how they do things, and sometimes WHY they do things - the Alexandrians and the Garnderians aren't a lot different, in some ways, but as time has gone on there are now a lot of traditions out there that are MUCH different from what's called British Traditional Wicca these days.

[Ben Trismegistus]

What exactly seperates Gardnerians from Alexandrians and other Wiccans?
When it comes down to it, the difference between Gardnerians/Alexandrians and other Wiccans are that G's and A's are more organized (they have more of a set way of doing things than a lot of other Wiccan sects, although there is still plenty of room for diversity) and they require initiation into a Gardnerian or Alexandrian coven.

[Kern]

Thanks Morgandria and Ben for the reply!

[Nacken]

I might as well add my two cents. You can be Gardenerian style, but would not be recognized as a Gardenerian unless you were initiated by a recognized Gardenerian HP or HPS. They would say that self initiation might make you a witch, but not a Gardenerian. The degree is written down and a copy is given to the new degree holder, another is kept by the teacher.
The Gardenerians refer to the Alexandrians as "our poor relations." What it comes down to is that a Gardenerian degree would be recognixed in an Alexandrian coven, but an Alexandrian degree would not be recognized in a Gardenerian coven. Then there is something called the Algard trad which means that they are trained in both and receive degrees in both. Because there aren't many differences between the two versions of the craft, getting trained in both is quite easy. There aren't that many Algards around. Mary Neswick tried to start it as a semi-separate trad. but it didn't catch on. Also, Alexandrian is uncommon ,from what I know, in the USA. In Canada, Alexandrian came earlier than to the states, so caught on and is more common. It sounds as though Gardenerians are kinda snooty or something, but its more a matter of having set up the rules and sticking to them. It is a preservation of a tradition, not rejection of all others.

[tensen]

What exactly seperates Gardnerians from Alexandrians and other Wiccans?

Simplest answer would be.... their lineage.

[Alexandra Asinine]

I was a Gardnerian student for some time, so I may be able to answer some questions.

is it permitted according to Gardnerian Wicca to use images of Gods for mundane purposes (ex.: decorative purposes, in books designed for educational purposes etc.), with respect in one's heart?

Yes. Mythology is respected and admired. The Gardnerian High Priest and High Priestess who were training me had countless images of deities from many pantheons. However, some of their deity names are oath-bound, and use is not permitted. However, if you're not Initiated, you don't have to worry about that, because you don't know the names!

what is the view of afterlife in Gardnerian Wicca? Is there any eternal punishment?

Death is one of their great Mysteries, so much of their view of the afterlife is oath-bound. However, it's fairly safe to assume an eternal punishment equivalant to "Hell" is probably out of the question!

[Anubis RainHawk]

Since this is a thread on Gardnerianism, I was wondering if someone could tell me what goes on during a a Gardnerian Esbat.
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk

[DebLipp]

Since this is a thread on Gardnerianism, I was wondering if someone could tell me what goes on during a a Gardnerian Esbat.
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk

The details of a Gardnerian ritual are considered secret. In a broad sense, a circle is cast, quarters are called, there are consecrations, purifications, the Lady and Lord are summoned, there is Cakes and Wine, work is done, and the circle is closed.

[Anubis RainHawk]

The details of a Gardnerian ritual are considered secret. In a broad sense, a circle is cast, quarters are called, there are consecrations, purifications, the Lady and Lord are summoned, there is Cakes and Wine, work is done, and the circle is closed.

You're right. I totally forgot able to oath bound secrecy. I was guessing that they proformed various acts of magick. I have a few more questions, by I wonder if they will interfere with the oath.

Anubis RainHawk

[DebLipp]

You're right. I totally forgot able to oath bound secrecy. I was guessing that they proformed various acts of magick. I have a few more questions, by I wonder if they will interfere with the oath.

Anubis RainHawk
Ask away. You didn't take an oath, so you aren't obligated to refrain from asking. How I answer is my problem. :D

[Anubis RainHawk]

Ok, here's another:
How important is Hierachy to the coven? I mean, do the High Priest and High Priestess do everything in the ritual? How much do the other members particiapate in ritual? Does it vary from group to group?
Thanks

Anubis RainHawk

[Rain Gnosis]

Hey, while we're on the topic, I want to ask trad Wiccans - what do you feel are core, necessary parts of Wicca. As in 8 sabbats, circle casting, god and goddess as archetypes or literal deities, etc. I know it's a big question, but I'm looking for generalities. Way too many neoWiccan books out there based on "anything is Wiccan" for me to have any idea, so I'm hoping you can help.

[DebLipp]

Two answers in one post, because bandwidth is being a meanie tonight.

How important is Hierachy to the coven? I mean, do the High Priest and High Priestess do everything in the ritual? How much do the other members particiapate in ritual? Does it vary from group to group?

Heirarchy is important to how the coven is structured, and to some rituals, but in terms of day to day activity, it can vary. There are certain things that only a 3rd can do, and certain things that only a 2nd or 3rd can do, but none of those things are everyday (or everymoon) affairs. The HPS rules the circle, and so she can assign parts of the ritual to whomever she chooses. I'd say it's pretty normal to hand pieces out--how else will people learn?

Hey, while we're on the topic, I want to ask trad Wiccans - what do you feel are core, necessary parts of Wicca. As in 8 sabbats, circle casting, god and goddess as archetypes or literal deities, etc. I know it's a big question, but I'm looking for generalities. Way too many neoWiccan books out there based on "anything is Wiccan" for me to have any idea, so I'm hoping you can help.

I am writing now about different kinds of Wicca for my next book. What is essential to trad Wicca is different from what is essential to eclectic Wicca. The "anything goes" attitude in eclectic Wicca is fine if you're eclectic.

For any Wiccan, here are the basics (aren't you lucky the manuscript is on my Desktop?):

Wiccans practice a polarity system
Wiccans believe in immanence
Wiccans attune to nature
Wiccans believe in magic
Wiccans cast circles and call quarters


For Traditionalist Wiccans, I'd add the following:

They have some form of lineage; members of a tradition know how and why they are members of that tradition
They have initiation ceremonies that are part of the tradition
There are usually multiple degrees of initiation
They value group (coven) work
They have some sort of Book of Shadows that codifies some portion of the tradition’s rituals and lore
There is often an oath of secrecy and/or loyalty and/or brotherhood.

[Anubis RainHawk]

Heirarchy is important to how the coven is structured, and to some rituals, but in terms of day to day activity, it can vary. There are certain things that only a 3rd can do, and certain things that only a 2nd or 3rd can do, but none of those things are everyday (or everymoon) affairs. The HPS rules the circle, and so she can assign parts of the ritual to whomever she chooses. I'd say it's pretty normal to hand pieces out--how else will people learn?

Why does the HPS have total control of the coven? Shouldn't it be shared with the High Priest? I'm guessing that the High Priestess rules over becuase she is a representitive of the Goddess in the circle, but still, shouldn't it be shared with the High Priest? I mean without the God, there would be no Goddess ( and vice versa).

I don't mean to "challenge" the tradition, this just doesn't make sense to me. I think I might be misundestanding this.
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk

[DebLipp]

Why does the HPS have total control of the coven? Shouldn't it be shared with the High Priest? I'm guessing that the High Priestess rules over becuase she is a representitive of the Goddess in the circle, but still, shouldn't it be shared with the High Priest? I mean without the God, there would be no Goddess ( and vice versa).

I don't mean to "challenge" the tradition, this just doesn't make sense to me. I think I might be misundestanding this.
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk
The High Priestess and High Priest have different roles, representing the Goddess and the God. The HPS rules certain spaces and the HP rules other spaces, depending upon how the God or Goddess is seen to participate mystically and mythically in that space. The circle is the space of the Goddess. It is therefore owned by the HPS.

How the coven is actually run is up to them of course. Most covens run by a couple run by true partnership within that couple. The truth of coven rulership is that everyone is listened to. I used to call my coven "consensus dictatorship"; meaning I'm the absolute ruler as long as everyone agrees. After all, what authority do I have except that granted by the respect and love of my coveners?

Many covens aren't run by a couple. Lots of covens are bootstrap covens. A single 3rd degree man or woman starts a coven, "borrowing" the services of a 3rd degree of the opposite gender when the need arises, and training up his or her partner. Obviously in such a situation the person doing the training will have greater authority.

[Morgandria]

How the coven is actually run is up to them of course. Most covens run by a couple run by true partnership within that couple. The truth of coven rulership is that everyone is listened to. I used to call my coven "consensus dictatorship"; meaning I'm the absolute ruler as long as everyone agrees. After all, what authority do I have except that granted by the respect and love of my coveners?

While I am not an initiate (although I hope to be someday!), this has been my experience with the BTW coven I worship with. The HP and HPS are a married couple who have been doing this for many years, and whatever their system is works for them very well - everyone who attends one of their rites has something to do, and no-one feels excluded (even us non-intitates).

I also work with a non-teaching, non-BTW coven where we have members of different traditions and sometimes different paths who come together on common interests. We have several members of varying priesthoods, but everyone participates. Many people might prefer this set-up, since everyone gets to "do something" in ritual, but I find I participate as much with the BTW coven as I do with the non-BTW one.

There are subtle differences - with the BTW group I cannot call a quarter, or be a handmaiden or attendant. Those are not things I am qualified to do with their coven, and I think a lot of people think that just because you are not doing ritual structrural components you are not doing anything "important" - which is not true.

What can I do? I can help arrange the feast, I can help keep the opening and closing chants strong since I am a trained vocalist, I hang out with the kids beforehand and talk, I make jewelry to share with people, I can go outside and locate herbs and other plants, wild or otherwise, if I'm asked, and so on and so forth. I guess to some people they might not be "equal in importance", but they are - they keep everything running smoothly.

-M.

[Rain Gnosis]

For any Wiccan, here are the basics (aren't you lucky the manuscript is on my Desktop?):

Brilliant, thanks so much for your post as this was exactly what I was looking for.

I was hoping you could perhaps expand a bit on one part - you mention practicing a polarity system (polarity in terms of Divine forms I'm guessing? or am I misunderstanding your usage?) and immanence. However, I guess this doesn't get to the heart of why I'm asking - how the Divine are seen - are Wiccans necessarily pantheistic or panentheistic, polytheistic, duotheistic, henotheistic, agnostic? Must the gods be seen as literal entities, as archetypes, as facets of a Divine force? Are they immanent in nature and/or in our selves?

The subject is something I have gone back and forth with for years, sometimes identifying with Wicca and at other times not doing so, because of my ways of looking at the Divine.

[DebLipp]

I was hoping you could perhaps expand a bit on one part - you mention practicing a polarity system (polarity in terms of Divine forms I'm guessing? or am I misunderstanding your usage?) and immanence. However, I guess this doesn't get to the heart of why I'm asking - how the Divine are seen - are Wiccans necessarily pantheistic or panentheistic, polytheistic, duotheistic, henotheistic, agnostic? Must the gods be seen as literal entities, as archetypes, as facets of a Divine force? Are they immanent in nature and/or in our selves?

You must have missed a fairly long back and forth that Ben T. & I had a while back. I feel very strongly that there is no 'test of faith' in Wicca. It's not what you believe (except within the very broad parameters I sketched) it's what you do that makes you Wiccan.

Most Wiccans I know are monists, but you don't have to be. You can be a hard polytheist, but your Wiccan altar would still be set up with a Goddess and a God. Or you can be a duotheist and believe that all Goddesses are One Goddess and all Gods are One God, so that it's the Lord and the Lady on the altar; hence a polarity system "of some kind."

Same with immanence. You really must believe in some sort of indwelling sanctity of human beings, including the sacredness of the body and of pleasure, in order to be Wiccan, but you can characterize that in quite a number of ways.

[Rain Gnosis]

Ah, orthopraxy vs orthodoxy. Thanks for your response - I have indeed missed your conversation with Ben T.

Looking forward to Ben's response, and response from others who have been or are in trad covens.

[Anubis RainHawk]

Most Wiccans I know are monists, but you don't have to be. You can be a hard polytheist, but your Wiccan altar would still be set up with a Goddess and a God. Or you can be a duotheist and believe that all Goddesses are One Goddess and all Gods are One God, so that it's the Lord and the Lady on the altar; hence a polarity system "of some kind."



I was just about to ask this question! I'm kind of between hard polytheism and monism, so I'm glad that would be accepted in Garderianism.

The next question: How do Gardnerians feel about the "Witch or Wiccan" controversy? Do they see them as different or essentially the same? I know you used "Witch" when speaking of other coveners in "The Elements of Ritual", but you have "Wiccan" in the title. What's the the difference according to Gardnerianism?
Thanks again.

Anubis RainHawk

[Anubis RainHawk]

Here's an interview with a Gardnerian High Priestess done by Gede P. I wanted to know what DebLipp thought of it.


It seems nearly every Tradition within the Pagan community is receiving bad press from each other. Dianics being stereotyped as lesbians, Eclectics likened to indesicive people who are frightened by the prospect of being given a label and Gardnerians as practitioners of sexually-explicit customs. How do you find modern Gardnerians are receiving this press and how do you react to people who reinforce these stereotypes negatively?

Marykay: Well, there's a lot of variety in reaction, because of the wide
range of individuals involved. There are many who simply ignore it and get
on with their own practice -- I would say that this is the majority,
actually. There are a few who get activistic about correcting the
stereotypes. This is actually a bit difficult for Gardnerians, being that
our practice is oathbound. I mean, if someone accuses you of something and
you can't confirm or deny it, the accuser will take that as confirmation.

A number of Gardnerians hold stereotypes of ecclectics, themselves, though
bunching all ecclectics together is even more flawed than is bunching all
Gardnerians together. We may have a LOT of differences, but at least we
share a core of practice. Ecclectics don't, and there is such great variety
that there is pretty much nothing you could say about ecclectics that would
apply to all of them.

My personal viewpoint is that each person must find their own way to connect
with the Divine that is most meaningful to them, and there is no one way
that is better than any other -- there are just ways that work better or
worse for any given individual. For me, Gardnerianism is a very meaningful
and profound way, but that doesn't apply to everyone, and their paths,
whatever they may be, should be respected.



Is Lineage still an important fundamental within the Gardnerian community. Is it possible to self-initiate as a Gardnerian and then approach a Coven or is the belief that 'only a Witch can make a Witch' still a prevalent theme? How can you, yourselves, trace your lineage?

Marykay: Within Gardnerianism, lineage is vital -- it is our connection to
the tradition and to the *energy* of the tradition. If one does not receive
that energy from someone who also received it, in the proper way, in an
unbroken line back to Gardner, one is NOT a Gardnerian. It is not possible
to self-initiate into this tradition.

We don't really use the "only a Witch can make a Witch" idea. There's a big
distinction that you haven't captured in your question. There's a
difference between being a Witch and being a Gardnerian Witch -- Gardnerians
aren't the only witches, so we wouldn't generalize that way.

I have no issues with self-initiation, in general. People are welcome to do
that, if that is what would work for them. But the specific tradition of
Gardnerianism has a pattern, and that requires initiation using a specific
rite, done by a person of the opposite gender who is entitled to perform it.
So, I would not say "only a Witch can make a Witch," but I would say "Only a
Gardnerian can make a Gardnerian."

We trace our lineage through our initiators back to Gardner. This is
something that is memorized after initiation. And, in case you're
interested, we have ways of checking other people's lineage, as well -- we
have a network out there and can always find someone who knows. Email has
greatly facilitated this process!

How is being male or female important in Gardnerian Wicca? Is it equitable or does one sex have prevalence over the other?

Marykay: In the past, in the United States, the High Priestess was
predominant in many covens. This actually became very problematic, as there
are many male initiates who did not receive proper training to function
fully as High Priests. I am happy to say that this is no longer the case,
almost anywhere. In most places now, covens are run jointly, with the
underlying understanding that if it really came down to it, the HPS would
make any final decision. In my experience, it has rarely come to that.

Gardnerianism is based on polarity -- the interplay of male and female
energies. This suggests and, frankly, necessitates that both are equal,
though they do fulfill different, complimentary roles in ritual. Balance is
fundamental. Patt and I are equals and while we have different strengths and
weaknesses, we operate together in a balanced way.



Is the act of the 'dismissing' of the High Priestess when she is at her menopause stage still practiced as Doreen Valiente was dismissed from her post in Gerald's coven?

Marykay: No, and this is NOT what happened with Doreen, so you've got
some incorrect information there. This has never been part of Gardnerian
practice and, in fact, one of Gardner's original priestess' is still running
a coven, though she is now in her 70's.



Have either one of you done any personal research as to the authenticity of some of the sections in Gardnerian Book of Shadows? Or it accepted now that Gardner elaborated and decorated some basic truths into more attractive versions of them?

Marykay: I have done a tremendous amount of research and know the source
of pretty much every core piece in the BoS. I cannot, due to my oath, go
into specifics. I will say that your second question here is problematic.
I cannot agree with it, the way it is stated.

From my research, and that of many others in the tradition, it is clear what
Gardner did. He was initiated into a system of Old Craft that he was bound
by oath to keep secret, yet he feared that it was dying out, so he created a
paraphrase of it that he could introduce to new people. He drew on many
sources for this paraphrase, and fleshed out that tradition, but the
underlying concepts/ideas upon which he based his new version of Craft were
derived from the older version.



Do you feel that people such as Doreen Valiente's work for Modern Wicca has been compromised by naming the original form of Wicca after Gardner? Or does Gardner serve a far more impressionable impact on the face of Witchcraft today?

Marykay: I have great respect for Doreen and the work she did. You first
must remember that Gardner did not invent the name "Gardnerian." In fact,
the term was invented after Gardner's death by Robert Cochrane, with whom
Doreen was working at the time, and was mean rather insultingly. Gardner
called his tradition, simply, Craft.

Gardner does deserve a great deal of recognition, however, for bringing the
deeply hidden Craft out into the open. His primary concern was that the
Craft survive, and he certainly insured this! There are, essentially, two
modern strains of Craft today -- one based on the work of Gardner in the
40's and 50's (including Gardnerians and the many ecclectic paths derived,
in some way, from Gardnerian Wicca), and the other based on the work of
Cochrane in the 50's and 60's (including Clan of Tubal Cain and the many
offshoots thereof). These two men appear to have done essentially the same
thing -- created a tradition based upon a legitimate Craft tradition into
which they were initiated. They went in VERY different directions with
their new traditions, however. But I would say that the entire Neo-pagan
movement wouldn't have happened if not for these two men.



Most Gardnerian Covens are for adults (people who are over and at the age of 18). Has it ever been heard of to know of a Teen Gardnerian Coven or are the themes in Gardnerian Ritual too mature for the younger generation of Witches?

Marykay: Again, the assumptions in your question are not quite right.
There are a lot of reasons that teens are very rarely initiated into
Gardnerian Craft, and "mature themes" is not really a significant one,
though there is some small truth to it. There has never been a Teen
Gardnerian Coven, though there have, on occasion, been teens initiated into
a coven of adults. This is ONLY done when that teen is the child of
Gardnerian parents.

There are lots of reasons that teens are not included. First, maturity is
required to take an oath and stick by it, maturity is required to make the
ethical decisions necessary for magick working, etc. Before initiating
someone, I need to know that they know themselves, that they've explored
their spirituality and it has led them here, etc. The youngest person I've
initiated has been 28 -- so it's not just a matter of waiting until they are
the magic 18.

Second, we have a lot of laws in this country that would cause a LOT of
havoc if it were discovered that a teen was habitually naked in a room with
a bunch of naked adults. Just try convincing your average American that
there's a bunch of naked people and no orgies going on. They have no other
frame of reference. We have in our material warnings about bringing the
Craft to the attention of the authorities. It would be begging for trouble.

I do know of some Gardnerians who will run Outer Court groups for teens.
These would be non-oathbound, robed groups. Not Gardnerian.



If a Gardnerian couple have children, is that child raised in specifically Gardnerian beliefs or are they watered down to the basics of Paganism?

Marykay: This, of course, depends on the parents. Most, however, raise
their kids to think for themselves, so that they will explore a lot of paths
and find the one that is right for them. These kids are definitely exposed
to ideas found in Gardnerianism, in a non-oathbound way, but those concepts
are found in a lot of paths. Remember that it is the ritual practice that
is oathbound -- not the philosophy. I have never seen a child raised with
the idea that it is a foregone conclusion that they will become Gardnerian
as adults and, in fact, few do.

Most kids of Gardnerians whom I have met are actually very well-rounded,
spiritually, with a good sense of mythology, philosophy and ethics.



Are Homosexuals rejected from Gardnerian circles or is it possible to have a Gay or Lesbian couple practicing with other varied couples?

Marykay: I know a TON of gay Gardnerian High Priests, and a number of
lesbian High Priestesses. Not a problem. Covens are autonomous, and they
can really do whatever they want in their own coven, as far as practicing as
couples. All that really matters, from the Tradition's perspective, is that
initiations and elevations are done cross-gender.

BB
Mary Kay

Anubis RainHawk

[DebLipp]

The next question: How do Gardnerians feel about the "Witch or Wiccan" controversy? Do they see them as different or essentially the same? I know you used "Witch" when speaking of other coveners in "The Elements of Ritual", but you have "Wiccan" in the title. What's the the difference according to Gardnerianism?
Thanks again.

I don't actually see it as a "controversy," I see it as a linguistic issue. 20 years ago, a Wiccan was a Witch and a Witch was an initiate, and that was that. It is obvious that the language is changing. Some Gardnerians stick firmly to the earlier form and refuse to refer to modern Eclectic Wiccans as Witches or Wiccans, but honestly, it's like calling your stereo a "hi-fi." Language changes. I am trying to adapt my way of speaking but after more than 20 years it's not easy, and I do sometimes refer to Wiccans as Witches.

[DebLipp]

Here's an interview with a Gardnerian High Priestess done by Gede P. I wanted to know what DebLipp thought of it.

Anubis RainHawk

I agree with it overall. She has more faith in the veracity of Robert Cochrane than I do.

[Anubis RainHawk]

Thanks for all the info, DebLipp. It's really helped! :)

Anubis RainHawk

[Ben Trismegistus]

Not much to add to this thread, since I pretty much agree with everything Deb Lipp ever says. :) (Deb, sometimes I just want to follow you around and write down everything you say! Need a groupie?)

Anubis, the interview you posted pretty much sums everything up. (Marykay? Wicca + cosmetics?)

I was a little surprised by Deb's comment about the circle being owned by the HPS, because it is the place of the Goddess. I'd never heard that, and speaking as a male Gardnerian initiate, it rankles to a certain extent, but I guess it does make sense. I guess I'd consider the role of the HPS to be "first among equals".

Rain, lovely to see you again - long time no talk!

[DebLipp]

Not much to add to this thread, since I pretty much agree with everything Deb Lipp ever says. :) (Deb, sometimes I just want to follow you around and write down everything you say! Need a groupie?)

Anubis, the interview you posted pretty much sums everything up. (Marykay? Wicca + cosmetics?)

I was a little surprised by Deb's comment about the circle being owned by the HPS, because it is the place of the Goddess. I'd never heard that, and speaking as a male Gardnerian initiate, it rankles to a certain extent, but I guess it does make sense. I guess I'd consider the role of the HPS to be "first among equals".

Rain, lovely to see you again - long time no talk!

Ben, with all respect and love, you are not a Gardnerian initiate, you are an initiate of a tradition very similar to, and closely related to, Gardnerianism. One of the key purposes in the formation of the Minoan tradition was the shifting of the theology and functionality of gender roles.

And I do need a groupie, but I'd prefer he be single.

Hope your holiday was excellent (and heart-healthy).

[Ben Trismegistus]

Ben, with all respect and love, you are not a Gardnerian initiate, you are an initiate of a tradition very similar to, and closely related to, Gardnerianism. One of the key purposes in the formation of the Minoan tradition was the shifting of the theology and functionality of gender roles.
Good point. :) OK so I'm a quasi-Gardnerian initiate. ;)

And I do need a groupie, but I'd prefer he be single.
Oh well. Some other time, perhaps. :heybaby:

Hope your holiday was excellent (and heart-healthy).
Lovely, healthy, and fattening. Hope yours was as well. :)

[Rain Gnosis]

Ok, can those trad folk with a view different from Deb Lipp/Ben T's please chime in?

Amethyst Rose? Kaylara maybe (you're trad, no?)? Somebody? :)

[moliver]

Ok, can those trad folk with a view different from Deb Lipp/Ben T's please chime in?


Different view on what? I am a BTW initiate (although not Gardnerian or Alexandrian) and will be glad to share my views although from what I've read, I pretty much agree with everything that Deb said. The most important thing to keep in mind among us traditionalists is that it is generally our practice that binds us together and not our beliefs. Some of my covenmates have very different beliefs than I do, for example, about the nature of deity. Despite this, we get along just fine in circle. It is our shared experiences that bring us together and bind us to the tradition, not our beliefs.

I think someone may have mentioned this already when they mentioned us being orthopraxic as opposed to being orthodoxic.

--
Mike Oliver

[Anubis RainHawk]

I was reading about initiation and priesthood in a so-called Gardnerian BOS titled "The Illustrated Guide to Wicca" and the authors mentioned that at 1st degree man becomes the God and woman becomes the Goddess. They went on to say that at the 3rd degree, man becomes the Goddess and vice versa. In a video about the Greek Mystery cults, Joseph Campell analysed a piece of art work that showed a man going through initiation and becomming a woman. Can this be applied to Garderian Witchcraft? Could one also apply this concept to other branches of the Craft?
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk

[Dawa Lhamo]

Ok, can those trad folk with a view different from Deb Lipp/Ben T's please chime in? Ok, well, I am not an initiate (yet!), but I was raised as "trad folk" so I don't know certain things, but I'm pretty sure I know a good bit of the basic, public things. ^_^ http://www.mysticwicks.com/showpost.php?p=1352209&postcount=21 where I describe my heritage. Ok, here's another:
How important is Hierachy to the coven? I mean, do the High Priest and High Priestess do everything in the ritual? How much do the other members particiapate in ritual? Does it vary from group to group?
Thanks

Anubis RainHawk In our particular coven, the HP and HPS do most things. Certain parts are given out, and the way we invoke deities is different and involves everyone (I think this may be unique to our coven, though, since I've attended sister covens that don't do this, and it isn't done at sabbats where there is a gathering of covens.) Our circle is run by the HPS, but the HP helps. Most of the organization/keeping of records seems to be done by the HP, though. (I hadn't really thought at all about there being any significance to it, though. Thanks, Deb, for filling that in for me. ^_^)Most Gardnerian Covens are for adults (people who are over and at the age of 18). Has it ever been heard of to know of a Teen Gardnerian Coven or are the themes in Gardnerian Ritual too mature for the younger generation of Witches?

Marykay: Again, the assumptions in your question are not quite right.
There are a lot of reasons that teens are very rarely initiated into
Gardnerian Craft, and "mature themes" is not really a significant one,
though there is some small truth to it. There has never been a Teen
Gardnerian Coven, though there have, on occasion, been teens initiated into
a coven of adults. This is ONLY done when that teen is the child of
Gardnerian parents. In my experience, this answer is true. Even so, my older brother had to wait until he was 16 to be initiated; that was the rule. (the rule of his godfather, in a sister coven; our coven has a rule of 18, I think.) He waited until he was 19, anyway though. I'm 21 now and my younger brother is 18 and we haven't decided to be initiated yet. I think traditional Wicca doesn't lend itself to teen covens, though. A 3rd might start a teaching coven, which might have younger members, perhaps even a teen with permission of parent/s, but I can't think how it would be possible for a teen to start a Gardnerian coven. I do remember being 15, though, and really, really wanting to be initiated right then. It's an emphatically good thing that I didn't push it and they didn't offer it. I may have thought I was ready, but I most definitely was not. ^_^If a Gardnerian couple have children, is that child raised in specifically Gardnerian beliefs or are they watered down to the basics of Paganism?

Marykay: This, of course, depends on the parents. Most, however, raise
their kids to think for themselves, so that they will explore a lot of paths
and find the one that is right for them. These kids are definitely exposed
to ideas found in Gardnerianism, in a non-oathbound way, but those concepts
are found in a lot of paths. Remember that it is the ritual practice that
is oathbound -- not the philosophy. I have never seen a child raised with
the idea that it is a foregone conclusion that they will become Gardnerian
as adults and, in fact, few do. My brothers and I, and the other "child of the coven" were raised to make our own decisions. We attended whatever religious services we asked to attend (I don't know since it never came up, but I'm willing to bet that we would have stayed at a friend's house if we didn't want to go to an esbat/sabbat), and every path was open to us. Even so, we did grow up in an implicitly pagan environment, and I know I absolutely work best with the structure and framework of a traditional coven, not to mention working with people synergistically. It wasn't until my work with the campus pagan group here that I really understood how much it influenced my worldview. So while I wasn't raised to it, I was raised with it, and so it definitely influences me, but there was no pressure to be something or pick a certain path. I could run off and become a Jehovah's witness or something very different and I know I would have my parents' love and support.

Tashi delek!
Dawa Lhamo

[Ben Gruagach]

Just another bit of history regarding "traditional Wicca" (Gardnerian and/or Alexandrian) initiations and the age of initiates.

In 1962 Alex Sanders initiated Maxine Morris. She was sixteen years old at the time -- he was in his thirties. In 1965 Alex did Maxine's third degree initiation making her his High Priestess. She would have been either eighteen (more likely nineteen) years old at the time. It was with Maxine as his high priestess that Alex really started kicking into high gear the process of getting his line of Wicca going.

Now Maxine might have been a very special case, but it does indicate that teenagers have in the past been not only full-fledged Wiccan initiates but also high priest/esses at least in some circumstances.

Today, though, with Wicca as a whole being much more established, I think that it should be an extremely rare case where a teenager should advance to the level of high priest/ess so quickly. That leadership role requires a lot of maturity and experience that I don't think many teenagers have. There are a lot of people in their twenties and sometimes even their thirties who don't have that maturity or experience to lead effectively.

[raven grimassi]

20 years ago, a Wiccan was a Witch and a Witch was an initiate, and that was that. It is obvious that the language is changing. Some Gardnerians stick firmly to the earlier form and refuse to refer to modern Eclectic Wiccans as Witches or Wiccans, but honestly, it's like calling your stereo a "hi-fi." Language changes. I am trying to adapt my way of speaking but after more than 20 years it's not easy, and I do sometimes refer to Wiccans as Witches.

I can relate. When I first encountered "Wicca" in the summer of 1969 there was a standard. When I met someone who bore the title Wiccan, I knew their theology, terminology, symbolism, and so forth. It seemed as though everyone was pretty much on the same page. As you stated there was no difference between a Witch and a Wiccan. At some point newbies came along and claimed Wicca, transformed it, and then told us ol' timers that we were confusing Wicca with Witchcraft. Maybe it is just me, but I feel a certain irony there.

Like yourself I find it difficult to shift to the popular usage. Some reviewers of my work comment that I cannot decide if I am writing about Wicca or Witchcraft, which I find amusing under the circumstances. For myself, I use the term Neo-Wicca when referring to contemporary Wicca as opposed to the form that Gardner and others addressed in the late 50s and early 60s.

You make an interesting point in your post. I am going to think about it while listening to an album on my hi-fi while I smoke some reefer. ;)

Best regards - Raven

[Anubis RainHawk]

If someone was interested in learning Gardnerian Witchcraft, but was unable to go through formal training and was under-age, what would you suggest? If it is impossible to learn, as Deb wrote, should I wait until an opportunity arises where I can learn?
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk

[Ben Trismegistus]

If someone was interested in learning Gardnerian Witchcraft, but was unable to go through formal training and was under-age, what would you suggest? If it is impossible to learn, as Deb wrote, should I wait until an opportunity arises where I can learn?
Thanks.
Yes. Your best shot is to read books on Wicca and other related subjects (see this thread (http://www.sdsmedia.com/showthread.php?t=38189) and this thread (http://www.mysticwicks.com/showthread.php?t=52940) for DebLipp's recommendations on books and subjects all Wiccans should read about), and when you've reached 18 (or older, whenever you feel ready), seek out a Gardnerian Coven looking for new students.

[Ben Gruagach]

If someone was interested in learning Gardnerian Witchcraft, but was unable to go through formal training and was under-age, what would you suggest? If it is impossible to learn, as Deb wrote, should I wait until an opportunity arises where I can learn?
Thanks.

Anubis RainHawk

I think that with minors and things like specific spiritual paths, the best advice is to just read what you can on your own and wait until you are at least eighteen (and not living with your parents) to seek out formal training or join an actual group.

If this really is the path for you then that period of learning on your own and waiting will not hurt you. Think of it as a test. If you can pass this test and still be interested when you become an adult, then it is the thing for you. If you lose interest then perhaps it wasn't.

In the meantime, visit your local library and read as much as you can about religion, mythology, and spirituality, as well as any other topics that interest you. Don't try to just stick to books on witchcraft, Wicca, or the occult -- get as broad and as deep an education as you can. Knowledge is power and will only help you.

Ben T has provided some excellent links to lists of recommended books to look for.

There is also a lot of information on the internet but there is also a lot of garbage out there. (The same goes with books and teachers -- you should always question things!)

When you are an adult and can join an actual group without getting in serious trouble with your parents (i.e. because you're an adult, and you aren't living with them any more) then look around at places like http://www.witchvox.com and you'll find all sorts of groups and teachers.

[DebLipp]

The Bens® have given great answers. As a Gardnerian, I would train someone with explicit parental permission or involvement, but I would not initiate below 18.

Above and beyond legal and interpersonal concerns, initiation is a profound metaphysical change. I would no more initiate an adolescent than I would give caffeine to an infant. Things that are okay and even healthy for adults aren't necessarily good for a younger person.

[Lunacie]

The "anything goes" attitude in eclectic Wicca is fine if you're eclectic.


-and this -

Some Gardnerians stick firmly to the earlier form and refuse to refer to modern Eclectic Wiccans as Witches or Wiccans

Do any Gardenerians recognize that some modern Eclectic Wiccans belong to Eclectic Traditions with recognized core practices?



Is the act of the 'dismissing' of the High Priestess when she is at her menopause stage still practiced as Doreen Valiente was dismissed from her post in Gerald's coven?

Marykay: No, and this is NOT what happened with Doreen, so you've got
some incorrect information there. This has never been part of Gardnerian
practice and, in fact, one of Gardner's original priestess' is still running
a coven, though she is now in her 70's.

From my reading I have gathered that Gardner did suggest doing this but Valiente refused to go along. (…trying to remember where I read this…)

[Ben Trismegistus]

Do any Gardenerians recognize that some modern Eclectic Wiccans belong to Eclectic Traditions with recognized core practices?

Yes, but there's a distinct difference between Eclectic Wiccans who have traditions they stick to and "Anything Goes" Wiccans. We acknowledge both, but have serious issues with the second type.

[Lunacie]

I have yet to meet a Gardenerian who acknowledges that Eclectics have the right to use the title Wiccan. They lump anyone who isn't a BTW into the "electicism means anything goes" category. That's why I was asking.

[Ben Trismegistus]

I have yet to meet a Gardenerian who acknowledges that Eclectics have the right to use the title Wiccan. They lump anyone who isn't a BTW into the "electicism means anything goes" category. That's why I was asking.
Well, then the Gardnerians you've met are a bunch of jerks.

[Lunacie]

Well, then the Gardnerians you've met are a bunch of jerks.http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies2/chairfall.gif We're in complete agreement on that.

Unfortunately the new seekers who visit that board have only the word of Eclectics and assorted Pagans that they don't have to buy into that particular line of belief. And clearly the Trads there are saying that the opinions of Eclectics and non-Wiccans are utterly worthless on any Wiccan topic. Not quite a board war but some folks have gotten out their fire-retardant ritual robes. :flamer:

[DebLipp]

I have yet to meet a Gardenerian who acknowledges that Eclectics have the right to use the title Wiccan. They lump anyone who isn't a BTW into the "electicism means anything goes" category. That's why I was asking.
How many Gardnerians do you know, and are they from different covens/coven lines (because everyone in one coven will have been taught the same terminology)?

Eclectic Traditions with a solid core practice are a sticky wicket. I'd be more inclined to simply refer to them as Traditions, and leave the term "Eclectic" for non-tradition based practice. Although that's not my call... :) If they want to call themselves "Eclectic Traditional" they will, but as long as the word "Traditional" is in there, and an implication of core practice, then it's not what I mean by "Eclectic Wicca."

Lots of people struggle mightily with the way language changes. I think it has more to do with language than with Wicca.

[DebLipp]

I want to add that the change in the use of the word "Wicca" has not been impelled so much by changes in Wicca as changes in Paganism.

When I was being trained, we referred to initiates as Wiccan and those in training as Pagan. But in those days, maybe 90% of the Pagans you met were practicing (or training) in Wicca. So the term made sense; "Wicca" was granular on the level of expertise, training, and initiation. But now, Wicca is maybe 70% of the community, and so 30% of the people you meet are Pagan without having any connection to Wicca. The word "Wicca" is now granular in terms of practice, style, and theology.

You can't call a Wiccan Outer Court "Pagan" anymore because it is Wiccan Paganism, as opposed to, say, Asatru. So you have to call it Wicca if you wish to make sense to anyone outside your living room.

[Anubis RainHawk]

The Bens® have given great answers. As a Gardnerian, I would train someone with explicit parental permission or involvement, but I would not initiate below 18.



Have you ever trained a minor? If so, how was the experience for you?

[DebLipp]

Have you ever trained a minor? If so, how was the experience for you?
Twice.

The first time was difficult and rewarding. The girl was very gifted, very psychic, but also somewhat troubled. She left us when she went to college out of town. No regrets, and I would be happy to run into her should our paths cross.

Currently I am training my son. (He has parental permission.) This was at his specific and formal request. So far so good.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Eclectic Traditions with a solid core practice are a sticky wicket. I'd be more inclined to simply refer to them as Traditions, and leave the term "Eclectic" for non-tradition based practice. Although that's not my call... :) If they want to call themselves "Eclectic Traditional" they will, but as long as the word "Traditional" is in there, and an implication of core practice, then it's not what I mean by "Eclectic Wicca."
It's a sticky wicket alright. Personally, I stay away from the term "eclectic" when referring to groups I'm trying to insult. Eclectic is a broad-enough term that it can have positive and negative connotations. Technically, I'm part of an Eclectic Gardnerian Tradition (or a Gardnerian offshoot), although I tend not to refer to it as that.

Someone on here (I forget who, of course) referred to the "anything goes" Wiccans as "DIY Wiccans" (as in "do it yourself") -- I like that term and have tried to use it when I can. "Insta-Wiccan" is also a good derisive term, I find.

[DebLipp]

Someone on here (I forget who, of course) referred to the "anything goes" Wiccans as "DIY Wiccans" (as in "do it yourself") -- I like that term and have tried to use it when I can. "Insta-Wiccan" is also a good derisive term, I find.
That was my coinage. :)

I don't use Eclectic as an insult. DIY isn't necessarily an insult either. A know-nothing attitude and an ample portion of hubris is worth insulting, not the methodology.

[Ben Gruagach]

That was my coinage. :)

I don't use Eclectic as an insult. DIY isn't necessarily an insult either. A know-nothing attitude and an ample portion of hubris is worth insulting, not the methodology.

I would hope that Eclectic is not being used as an insult.

Gerald Gardner, Doreen Valiente, Alex Sanders, Robert Cochrane -- these are all some of the most eclectic Wiccans I can think of. I admire them for what they did and think if eclecticism was fine for them then it is probably fine for present-day and future Wiccans as well. [Edited to add -- I know Robert Cochrane would not consider himself to be a Wiccan -- he's an example of an eclectic Witch or perhaps an eclectic Religious Witch.]

As far as I'm personally concerned, the whole attitude of One-True-Way (as in "true Wiccan" or "true Witch" or "true Pagan" -- sometimes substituting "real" for "true") is another thing that does a lot of harm to our community. Note: Of course there are strict rules for using specific titles for established and organized groups -- only approved and accepted people are allowed to call themselves a Gardnerian High Priest/ess, for example. But no sect or denomination owns the exclusive right to define who is and isn't a Wiccan, a Witch, or a Pagan.

[Ben Trismegistus]

That was my coinage. :)
You're a genius.

I don't use Eclectic as an insult. DIY isn't necessarily an insult either. A know-nothing attitude and an ample portion of hubris is worth insulting, not the methodology.
Good point.

[Lunacie]

How many Gardnerians do you know, and are they from different covens/coven lines (because everyone in one coven will have been taught the same terminology)?

Eclectic Traditions with a solid core practice are a sticky wicket. I'd be more inclined to simply refer to them as Traditions, and leave the term "Eclectic" for non-tradition based practice. Although that's not my call... http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies/smile.gif If they want to call themselves "Eclectic Traditional" they will, but as long as the word "Traditional" is in there, and an implication of core practice, then it's not what I mean by "Eclectic Wicca."

Lots of people struggle mightily with the way language changes. I think it has more to do with language than with Wicca.I know about four Gardnarians, all posters on the one discussion board. There may be a couple of others, but it seems like the oaths of secrecy prevent them from saying what coven/lines they belong to, or even if they belong to one at all. I don't believe any of them belong to the same coven.


Of course there are strict rules for using specific titles for established and organized groups -- only approved and accepted people are allowed to call themselves a Gardnerian High Priest/ess, for example. But no sect or denomination owns the exclusive right to define who is and isn't a Wiccan, a Witch, or a Pagan.When called on it, these posters say they aren't claiming they have the exclusive definition of Wicca, but they certainly aren't shy about saying that others posters fall short of their criteria. They feel it's their responsibility to correct all misinformation, and anything that doesn't match Gardnerian standards is branded as lies, falsehoods, and deliberate attempts to "dumb down" the religion for the masses.

They demand that others, especially Eclectics, produce reams of proof to back up every opinion they post, yet they expect to be taken at their word that they have studied with a Trad and have all this knowledge themselves. They have created quite a "Them versus Us" environment. I have been dumbfounded and delighted to find there are posters here who claim Gardnerian lineage but understand that they aren't the 'be all' and 'end all' of Wicca.

*tips hat to these fine folks*

[Elderbush]

Oh, come on Lunacie! You know a couple BTWs have finally admitted that there could be some solitaries who might be real Wiccans! *evil grin* The rest of us are NeoWiccans, cowans and fluff bunnies, of course.

I've been interested in other viewpoints about Wicca as an umbrella term versus a specific term. My theory is that most BTWs see Wicca as a specific term while Eclectic Wiccans see it as more of an umbrella term, with the trad being the specific.

Thank you everyone for being normal. I'm working on regaining a sense of humor. :spinner:

[DebLipp]

I know about four Gardnarians, all posters on the one discussion board. There may be a couple of others, but it seems like the oaths of secrecy prevent them from saying what coven/lines they belong to, or even if they belong to one at all. I don't believe any of them belong to the same coven.
Lineage is not secret. Lineage is a system of verifiable credentialing. Some legit Gardnerians are incredibly private about their lineage, but most people who tell you that their lineage is secret do so to cover up the fact that they haven't any. I could understand keeping such information off an open board, but they should respond politely to PM.

When called on it, these posters say they aren't claiming they have the exclusive definition of Wicca, but they certainly aren't shy about saying that others posters fall short of their criteria. They feel it's their responsibility to correct all misinformation, and anything that doesn't match Gardnerian standards is branded as lies, falsehoods, and deliberate attempts to "dumb down" the religion for the masses.

They demand that others, especially Eclectics, produce reams of proof to back up every opinion they post, yet they expect to be taken at their word that they have studied with a Trad and have all this knowledge themselves. They have created quite a "Them versus Us" environment. I have been dumbfounded and delighted to find there are posters here who claim Gardnerian lineage but understand that they aren't the 'be all' and 'end all' of Wicca.

*tips hat to these fine folks*

Thanks for the compliments. :) It is easy to write these people off as total jerks. Not knowing who they are or where they post, I can't say for sure. Maybe they feel they are teaching by creating a barrier to overcome. Maybe they feel they are weeding out the riff-raff. There are reasonable justifications for being difficult. OTOH, maybe they're total jerks.

[Anubis RainHawk]

I would hope that Eclectic is not being used as an insult.



I would hope so as well.

From my studies thus far, it seems that Wicca is an eclectic religion. I mean, there's circle casting (Ceremonial Influence), Karma (Hindu/Buddhist), and the whole Horned God image (Celtic). If all this was correct, wouldn't in make Gardnerianism traditional eclecticism?
Just a thought.

Anubis RainHawk

[Ben Gruagach]

Oh, come on Lunacie! You know a couple BTWs have finally admitted that there could be some solitaries who might be real Wiccans! *evil grin* The rest of us are NeoWiccans, cowans and fluff bunnies, of course.

I'd like to thank DebLipp for bringing to my attention Fred Lamond's excellent book "Fifty Years of Wicca" and add that I highly recommend it as a good way to innoculate yourself against the "witchier than thou" types (regardless of their denominations or titles or whatever.) Fred was initiated into Gerald Gardner's coven when Doreen Valiente was high priestess, and I think might be the oldest living Wiccan today. (Deb -- do you happen to know if there are any others from Gardner's initial coven, back in Fred's day with them at least, who are still alive? No names needed -- I'm just curious if Fred is the last of that era.)

Doreen Valiente's books, particularly "The Rebirth of Witchcraft," are also excellent to help anyone recover after encounters with the "witchier than thou" attitude.

[lightdragon]

I'd like to thank DebLipp for bringing to my attention Fred Lamond's excellent book "Fifty Years of Wicca" and add that I highly recommend it as a good way to innoculate yourself against the "witchier than thou" types (regardless of their denominations or titles or whatever.) Fred was initiated into Gerald Gardner's coven when Doreen Valiente was high priestess, and I think might be the oldest living Wiccan today. (Deb -- do you happen to know if there are any others from Gardner's initial coven, back in Fred's day with them at least, who are still alive? No names needed -- I'm just curious if Fred is the last of that era.)

Doreen Valiente's books, particularly "The Rebirth of Witchcraft," are also excellent to help anyone recover after encounters with the "witchier than thou" attitude.
i`m not sure if these count Drawing Down the Moonby Margret Adler and Truimph of the Moon by Ronald Hutton. I`m reading both books and i usually feel better when i hear such things.

[Lunacie]

Oh, come on Lunacie! You know a couple BTWs have finally admitted that there could be some solitaries who might be real Wiccans! *evil grin* The rest of us are NeoWiccans, cowans and fluff bunnies, of course.

I've been interested in other viewpoints about Wicca as an umbrella term versus a specific term. My theory is that most BTWs see Wicca as a specific term while Eclectic Wiccans see it as more of an umbrella term, with the trad being the specific.

Thank you everyone for being normal. I'm working on regaining a sense of humor. :spinner:
Sure, one of them has admitted that solities can be real Wiccan because she is currently a solitary herself, but Eclectics are a whole different kettle of fish.

I actually posted that notion about the Trads viewing Wicca as a subset of Paganism, while Eclectics are beginning to see it as Paganism > Wicca > Trads, just taking it one step further.

Lineage is not secret. Lineage is a system of verifiable credentialing. Some legit Gardnerians are incredibly private about their lineage, but most people who tell you that their lineage is secret do so to cover up the fact that they haven't any. I could understand keeping such information off an open board, but they should respond politely to PM.
I didn't think lineage was actually a secret, but some posters sure act like it. The one poster that has the worst attitude has a problem with being polite, or having manners or respect. They seem to be dirty words to her, maybe some childhood issues there? Anyway, that forum doesn't have a PM system and I'm not gonna send her an email and have her start harassing me through email as well as on the board.

Thanks for the compliments. :) It is easy to write these people off as total jerks. Not knowing who they are or where they post, I can't say for sure. Maybe they feel they are teaching by creating a barrier to overcome. Maybe they feel they are weeding out the riff-raff. There are reasonable justifications for being difficult. OTOH, maybe they're total jerks.
You're welcome. And that's an angle I hadn't thought of with the barrier. One poster has said it's her responsibility to correct misinformation, which generally means she calls anyone she disagrees with a "liar" and accuses them of "dumbing down the religion for the masses". From what I've seen Traditionalists think the religion should stay small and elite, that it was never intended to be an "evangelical religion". I think Gardner wanted to let people know about it or he wouldn't have written books and talked to people like Buckland who wanted to write a book himself. He would have kept it so the teaching was one-on-one. But, am I missing something there?

[Ben Trismegistus]

I've been interested in other viewpoints about Wicca as an umbrella term versus a specific term. My theory is that most BTWs see Wicca as a specific term while Eclectic Wiccans see it as more of an umbrella term, with the trad being the specific.
Well, I think it's a little bit of both. It's not as much of an umbrella term as "paganism" (which under the right circumstances can mean virtually anything), but not as specific a term as, say, "African Methodist Episcopalian".

I liken Wicca to Christianity. Christianity can be said to be a specific religion in itself, as well as an umbrella term which includes all the various specific ways to practice the religion -- Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, Anglican, etc. Those denominations all share certain theological and practical tenets in common -- the death and resurrection of Jesus, the ritual of communion, etc. -- but they have many differences in detail and philosophy.

Wicca is the same way. All Wiccans share (or should share) certain commonalities -- a belief in the balanced polarity of the universe, reverence of the four elemental directions, etc. -- but the individual traditions vary greatly in terms of practice and philosophy. So, in this way, Wicca is both an umbrella term and a specific religion. And I think that this holds true whether you're a BTW or an Eclectic Wiccan.

[Ben Trismegistus]

You're welcome. And that's an angle I hadn't thought of with the barrier. One poster has said it's her responsibility to correct misinformation, which generally means she calls anyone she disagrees with a "liar" and accuses them of "dumbing down the religion for the masses". From what I've seen Traditionalists think the religion should stay small and elite, that it was never intended to be an "evangelical religion". I think Gardner wanted to let people know about it or he wouldn't have written books and talked to people like Buckland who wanted to write a book himself. He would have kept it so the teaching was one-on-one. But, am I missing something there?
Well, I think that, ideally, we should aim to be somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. We are, after all, a religion of balance.

On a tangent, let me just say that you should not make generalizations about Traditionalists based on the views of four people. They sound like stuck-up jerks to me, and definitely don't represent the views of any of the Traditionalists *I* know.

But back to your question. I think that Gardner and the rest originally intended for Wicca to be passed on from high priest to initiate, and so on down the line. But I think it became obvious in the 1960s and 70s that the direct-lineage style was simply too limited to take care of everyone who wanted to practice the religion. So the religion adapted -- other traditions broke off, and the religion spread and changed and grew. This doesn't negate the benefits of Gardner's original idea of direct initiate, and nor does it make solitary or eclectic practice inferior. They're just different ways to practice and to learn.

Because of this, I would never be as strident or insulting as the poster who calls people liars and accuses them of dumbing down the religion simply for being eclectic or solitary. That said, I *DO* think there are people who are dumbing down the religion. In my previous post, I mentioned the similarity between Wicca and Christianity in terms of a religion that could be broken down into more specific sects. But, I said, both Wicca and Christianity have religious tenets that transcend the various sects. So that's where I draw the line with Wiccans. I get upset when someone who refers to themselves as Wiccan describes a practice that is so outlandish that it bears absolutely no resemblance to what the majority of us consider Wiccan. I've seen "Wiccans" say "I don't cast circles" or "I don't call directions" or "I don't believe in the God", and I think they're more than welcome to believe or practice however they see fit, but it's not Wicca. Wicca requires a belief in balanced polarity (which includes a God and a Goddess), and certain ritual practices, and little else. There's PLENTY of room for ritual diversity within Wicca, and I embrace that diversity. But I'm unable to stand by and watch Wicca be diluted to the point that it becomes entirely meaningless. This religion means too much to me to let that happen.

So therein lies the balance -- being open-minded enough to embrace the diversity of beliefs and practices within the Wiccan religion, but still being willing and able to expect certain minimums of knowledge, a certain amount of historical correctness, the very basics of Wiccan theology. I don't think that's too much to ask.

(Sorry - two long posts in a row!)

[Lunacie]

Wow, BenT, that's almost exactly the same thought I posted on the other board. :thumbsup:

[Ben Trismegistus]

Wow, BenT, that's almost exactly the same thought I posted on the other board. :thumbsup:
*grin* Which one? There's a lot of thoughts in there. :)

[DebLipp]

I'd like to thank DebLipp for bringing to my attention Fred Lamond's excellent book "Fifty Years of Wicca" and add that I highly recommend it as a good way to innoculate yourself against the "witchier than thou" types (regardless of their denominations or titles or whatever.) Fred was initiated into Gerald Gardner's coven when Doreen Valiente was high priestess, and I think might be the oldest living Wiccan today. (Deb -- do you happen to know if there are any others from Gardner's initial coven, back in Fred's day with them at least, who are still alive? No names needed -- I'm just curious if Fred is the last of that era.)
From that coven, Fred is the last who still practices Wicca, according to his own statement.

[DebLipp]

I actually posted that notion about the Trads viewing Wicca as a subset of Paganism, while Eclectics are beginning to see it as Paganism > Wicca > Trads, just taking it one step further.
Let me say that language is constantly in a state of becoming less specific, and softer. "Awesome" used to mean "inspiring awe; like a God." Now it means "way cool," and so new coinages have to step in to mean "awesome." "Bashing," as in "gay bashing," used to mean to beat up violently, possibly fatally. Now it means to insult or criticize. So a useful coinage about hate-inspired violence has disappeared.

Just so, "Wicca" used to mean the practice of tradition-based Pagan religious Witchcraft. Now it has expanded to include a whole range of religious paths from the most traditional to the most eclectic, with a lot of gradations in between.

At every step of the way as language changes, the people who use a word or phrase the original way complain bitterly about the idiocy of the people who use it the expanded way. I wish people would stop doing this to language. But they won't and, while I am a member of the Language Police, I am not authorized to make arrests or impose fines. So you kind of have to accept things the way they are.

I think Gardner wanted to let people know about it or he wouldn't have written books and talked to people like Buckland who wanted to write a book himself. He would have kept it so the teaching was one-on-one. But, am I missing something there?
Gardner wrote books so that people could make contact. He definitely wanted the religion to spread, but he surely never imagined self-initiation. It just didn't exist at the time.

[Ben Gruagach]

I'm going to challenge a few of the statements you've made, Deb. I'm hoping you'll consider them and perhaps expand on your thinking a bit.

"Bashing," as in "gay bashing," used to mean to beat up violently, possibly fatally. Now it means to insult or criticize. So a useful coinage about hate-inspired violence has disappeared.

This is off topic, but I don't think I've ever seen "bashing" used to mean "disagreement" except where said disagreement also involved verbal violence. I encourage people to disagree, but I discourage bashing as part of the expression of those disagreements.

But that's just based on my own experience. Perhaps you have encountered people who use "bashing" to include even polite disagreement.

Just so, "Wicca" used to mean the practice of tradition-based Pagan religious Witchcraft. Now it has expanded to include a whole range of religious paths from the most traditional to the most eclectic, with a lot of gradations in between.

I know you come from a very denominational-based outlook because, after all, you are a Gardnerian. So it's not surprising that you might see the "original" definition of Wicca to be denominational or sectarian based on formal lineage and initiation into established groups.

I'm not convinced though that Wicca was primarily denominational until the idea was introduced and emphasized by some.

In reading Gardner's books, Valiente's books, and now Fred Lamond's book "Fifty Years of Wicca" as well as a lot of other books (plenty which were published before the 1980s so could be considered "old guard") there are some assumptions that need to be brought to light.

Wicca was long considered to be a synonym for Witch (i.e. the clear distinction between Wiccans and Witches is a more recent thing.) I know you've discussed this at some length, Deb, but it's important to mention again as it's relevant to the idea of Wicca being strictly denominational or lineage-based. My favourite way of pointing this assumption out is that Gardner didn't call his books "Wicca Today" and "The Meaning of Wicca" but "Witchcraft Today" and "The Meaning of Witchcraft." I understand Gardner himself rarely ever called it Wicca, but generally just called it Witchcraft. So I think it's fair to say that Gardner and many of the influential types like Valiente considered it to be just witchcraft (whether they were correct or not.)

The idea of working in a coven was certainly pushed (it's a good way to establish some quality control after all) but solitaries were usually acknowledged even by people like Gardner. The criterion for whether someone was a witch or not didn't seem to be whether they had a formal initiation but rather if they had lore to pass on, or if they called themselves a witch and knew something that seemed to indicate they knew what they were talking about.

Gardner, having travelled quite a bit, would not likely have been so foolish as to think that his particular form of witchcraft was the only form out there. Maybe he thought that the word witch should be reserved for British forms, but this is contradicted by the fact that in his form he seemed to have no problem with incorporating Greek, Roman, and other non-Celtic and non-British ideas (Aradia is not a Celtic deity, after all -- nor is "Aradia: the Gospel of the Witches" about British myth or culture... yet it was clearly one of Gardner's sources.)

Gardnerian Wicca and most of its offshoots such as Alexandrian are definitely denominational and lineage-based -- but then that's to be expected because they were founded and structured to be such by Gardner and Sanders. I'm not convinced that Gardner, Valiente, and at least some of the other influential founders honestly thought that their denominational witchcraft was the only form of witchcraft.

Since the community has evolved to identify Wicca as that core of practices that traces back to Gardner and not the be-all and end-all of witchcraft, it still leaves things open for non-denominational Wiccans to exist. We've all seen that it's highly debatable whether the core of Wiccan practice includes direct and specific lineage to Gardner.

At every step of the way as language changes, the people who use a word or phrase the original way complain bitterly about the idiocy of the people who use it the expanded way. I wish people would stop doing this to language. But they won't and, while I am a member of the Language Police, I am not authorized to make arrests or impose fines. So you kind of have to accept things the way they are.

I like to encourage people to get their hands on a copy of Mary Daly and Jane Caputi's book "Wickedary," as it illustrates the lesson of consciously using language to suit your own purposes. It's something that the feminist community explored and internalized, something the gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community has learned and internalized, and it's something our community can learn and internalize too.

Words can only be used against you if you allow them to be defined in ways that hurt.

Many in the Pagan community have reclaimed the word "Pagan" (which was apparently an insult in Roman days), and the word "Witch" as well, to be words of power that we use to self-identify. Why let it stop there? Why let others do the defining for us?

It also comes back to the complaint about people "watering down" our spiritual path or whatever. Unless those people are forcing their way into our homes and holding us at gunpoint, they are not stopping any of us from continuing our own practice the way we see fit. They have a voice to explain their viewpoint, and so do we -- if we choose to use it. If we feel that others are not representing our viewpoint then our responsibility is to speak up so that we represent ourselves. It's the only realistic way to do things in a diverse community. Speak your own truth but be respectful that others have their own truth as well.

Gardner wrote books so that people could make contact. He definitely wanted the religion to spread, but he surely never imagined self-initiation. It just didn't exist at the time.

Gardner probably did envision his denomination as being exclusively propogated through formal initiations. Other very influential contemporaries, though, including Doreen Valiente, Ray Buckland, and others, apparently thought self-initiation (which I think is more appropriately called self-dedication) was fine though -- at least at one point in their careers. Doreen Valiente provided a self-initiation ritual in her book "Witchcraft for Tomorrow" and Ray did the equivalent in "The Tree." They didn't present these as being any sort of back-door ways into Gardnerian membership, of course, but they also presented them in the context of being Wiccan even if they used the word Witchcraft instead of Wiccan.

Gardner (and more notoriously, Alex Sanders) did seem to want to spread Wicca by the fact that they encouraged or performed so many initiations. I think it was Janet Farrar who joked that Alex would have initiated the postman if he stood still long enough. While they may have been promoting denominational Wicca they certainly didn't seem to consider it an overly exclusive club or else they would have been more particular about bringing people in.

[DebLipp]

Ben, I'm not going to reply with quotes, as carefully as I should, because it's a little more involved than I can get today.

I think you're muddying some terms. Gardner used "Witchcraft" rather sloppily. He certainly meant what we now call Wicca, and he also certainly included what we now call "non-Wiccan witchcraft," such as kitchen witchery and Voodoo-based Witchcraft and a host of other things. But he knew the difference and a careful reading of his work shows that he did.

He didn't call his books Wicca Today because NO ONE KNEW THE WORD. It wouldn't have sold. The early practitioners of Wicca called what they did Witchcraft. They sought out Witchcraft and used that word for what they were seeking.

But they were seeking something specific. Call it Murrayite. Or Leland/Aradia-based. Or occult-based. They people who came to Gardner may have felt kinship with the kitchen witch but they didn't conflate kitchen witchery with Gardnerian covencraft. I know Fred. I've circled with Fred. I know that the people in the original GBG covens were very oriented towards nature worship, goddess worship, spellcraft, and a certain level of ceremonial occultism. Again, they may have looked at a kitchen witch and said "we're both witches" and shared the love, but they also knew they were doing something specific and that it required initiation. In fact, they all believed that the folk witches were also initiates, whether through covens or individual apprenticeships. It was an assumption of the language and you can find it everywhere in the early writing.

The Witch Wars of the 50s and 60s were all about lineage and initiation. All the non-Gardnerians, all the rivals and supposed fam trads (because I do not believe any real fam trads emerged in those battles) were about the legitimacy of initiation and lineage. Who came from Real Witches? Who was an upstart? That was all right there from day one. Fred doesn't dwell on it in his book because he hates it and it is unimportant to his basic thesis. But that doesn't mean it didn't exist; enough else has been written to establish that. Now, they weren't calling it a tradition or a denomination in exactly the lingo we're using, but you either had the "witch line" or you didn't. Gardner's detractors said he didn't. Alex Sanders' detractors said HE didn't. And so on.

Re "gay bashing." I didn't say "disagree" I said "insult or criticize." I stand by it. Surely you've seen on these very boards that anytime someone says "Christianity is responsble for a long history of violent Crusades and this is a very bad thing about Christianity" someone will leap to their feet and shout "CHRISTIAN BASHING!" Honestly, I think it sours the whole idea of reasoned debate but there you are.

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks for the response Deb -- I wanted to give you good karma for elaborating, but I need to spread my karma around some more before I can give more to you!

My goal was to try and encourage you to expand on your previous statements a bit, and I want to thank you for taking the time to do so. It's not just for me (because, to be honest, I've heard most of what you're saying before) but I think it's important for the lurkers and newbies to have this info available too.

[Lunacie]

Wow, BenT, that's almost exactly the same thought I posted on the other board.

*grin* Which one? There's a lot of thoughts in there. http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies/smile.gifThe one where you compared Wicca to being an umbrella title similar to the development of Christianity as an umbrella title over the various denominations, and I'd add that over Christianity is the title of Abrahamic religion.



On a tangent, let me just say that you should not make generalizations about Traditionalists based on the views of four people. They sound like stuck-up jerks to me, and definitely don't represent the views of any of the Traditionalists *I* know.



I think it’s natural to make generalizations based on my own experience of four stuck up jerks who apparently think they do represent the views of the whole Tradition… at least until more experiences give me a reason to rethink that opinion. Maybe not as wise as I would like to be, but natural. http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies2/shrug.gif



This doesn't negate the benefits of Gardner's original idea of direct initiate, and nor does it make solitary or eclectic practice inferior.


I believe initiation is important, but not necessary, to being Wiccan. It rather relates to inner court practices versus outer court practices. Both can call themselves Wiccan, but only the first can call themselves initiates.



Gardner wrote books so that people could make contact. He definitely wanted the religion to spread, but he surely never imagined self-initiation. It just didn't exist at the time.



Are you saying that self-initiation is valid? I certainly believe self-dedication can be very valuable, but doesn’t initiation imply being initiated by someone else and thereby joining a coven (group, etc.)?



I *DO* think there are people who are dumbing down the religion. < snip > But I'm unable to stand by and watch Wicca be diluted to the point that it becomes entirely meaningless. This religion means too much to me to let that happen.

I agree that some people are dumbing down or watering down the religion, but I think it’s a huge generalization to say that all Eclectics or all Solitaries are doing that. (Yes, I can see the irony. http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif )



Whew, almost caught up. Just need to read the last few posts now.



Thank you all for helping me to think this debate through without all the heated rhetoric that's happening on that 'other board.' http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies2/loki16.gif

[Lunacie]

Okay, I'm not anywhere nearly as well read as either Deb Lipp or Ben Grugach, so I'll leave the rest of the debate/discussion to them, and anyone else who feels qualified to offer an opinion.

[DebLipp]

Are you saying that self-initiation is valid? I certainly believe self-dedication can be very valuable, but doesn’t initiation imply being initiated by someone else and thereby joining a coven (group, etc)
With all due respect, I don't think that's a reasonable question to ask, because we haven't defined the word "valid." Valid as what, for what purpose, and according to whom?

There are certainly people who have self-initiated and then sashayed up and demanded access to a Traditional coven, and those people certainly have their heads implanted in a dark spot, but maybe it's because THEY weren't stopping to define the term.

Personally, yes, I'd say that self-dedication is a more sensible sort of ritual, but if you're going to define initiation in a particular way, and valid in a particular way, then there is a way of defining the phrase "valid self-initiation" that I would accept.

[Ben Trismegistus]

Are you saying that self-initiation is valid? I certainly believe self-dedication can be very valuable, but doesn’t initiation imply being initiated by someone else and thereby joining a coven (group, etc.)?

I don't like the term self-initiation. I've gotten into arguments about this in the past with Ben G, because he sees the term "initiation" as wider and looser than I do. As far as I'm concerned, "initiation", in the context of Wicca or another mystery religion, refers to a specific rite of passage performed on you by an external person or group. By this definition, self-initiation cannot exist, because initiation is something that can only be delivered by somebody else.

Ben G argues instead that there's another definition of the word initiation which means a sort of spiritual epiphany, a moment when you suddenly make a huge leap in spiritual knowledge and experience, and that's something that can happen without other people. While I respect his difference of opinion, I believe that in the interests of clarity it's best to restrict the definition of initiation (in a Wiccan setting) to that of a ritual performed on you by others. A self-dedication, or a spiritual epiphany, are perfectly fine, but are different from an initiation.

The reason I say this is exactly what Deb said. I'm against people performing a "self-initiation" and suddenly proclaiming themselves a third degree and demanding membership to a third degree coven. The traditional degree system is based on a set of requirements, and if anyone can simply proclaim themselves to be of a certain degree, that renders my own degrees meaningless. Since we've already established that initiations and degrees are unnecessary to being a "real" Wiccan, what would be the point of doing them incorrectly?



I agree that some people are dumbing down or watering down the religion, but I think it’s a huge generalization to say that all Eclectics or all Solitaries are doing that. (Yes, I can see the irony. http://mysticwicks.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif )

I agree, and I don't believe that I made that generalization. If I did, I take it back.

[Ben Gruagach]

Ben T almost got my stance on initiation right in his explanation.

My stance is not one I made up myself -- it's based on the writings of people like Dion Fortune, Marian Green, and others who I respect and admire. It's also based on a lot of research I've done on the topics of mystery religions, mysticism, and magickal groups like the Golden Dawn and OTO as well as Wicca. (I've written a book on the topic that I'm currently shopping around to publishers...)

The short answer is that there are two types of initiation, and those two types are often confused (sometimes on purpose in order to deceive.) The first type of initiation is the type that humans perform: it's a formal acceptance of a person into an established group. The other type is the "spiritual initiation" where you have an epiphany or take a discrete step in your spiritual growth. This second type involves an individual having some sort of contact with the Divine. This second type is bestowed by the Divine and in my opinion (and the opinion of people like Dion Fortune) is not something we humans can produce on demand.

What some people call self-initiation is more accurately called a self-dedication. They're not really initiations because they aren't formal acceptance rituals into specific groups as those must be performed by other people who have the authority of that specific group to bestow the initiation. And we can't force the Divine to grant us an initiation -- that to me seems like a terribly arrogant thing anyways. But we can certainly do rituals where we promise to ourselves and to our view of the Divine that we will follow whatever path we have chosen. And we can do all sorts of things to try and make ourselves worthy of the Divine touch -- but it's still up to the Divine to do the actual touching. Some people can go through all sorts of human-performed training and reach the highest degrees in their religious organizations and yet never receive a spiritual initiation. And there are plenty of people who have experienced spiritual initiations without ever becoming involved in formal magickal, spiritual, or religious organizations.

In my opinion, anyone who claims they can do a "spiritual initiation" on another human is lying. And as Deb pointed out, anyone who does a self-dedication and then goes to a specific established group and demands to be recognized as an accepted member is also deluded.

Dion Fortune's book "The Training and Work of an Initiate" is an excellent text to hunt down to learn more about the topic of initiation, and how one group (Dion Fortune's "Society of the Inner Light") goes about training its members.

[Lunacie]

With all due respect, I don't think that's a reasonable question to ask, because we haven't defined the word "valid." Valid as what, for what purpose, and according to whom?

There are certainly people who have self-initiated and then sashayed up and demanded access to a Traditional coven, and those people certainly have their heads implanted in a dark spot, but maybe it's because THEY weren't stopping to define the term.

Personally, yes, I'd say that self-dedication is a more sensible sort of ritual, but if you're going to define initiation in a particular way, and valid in a particular way, then there is a way of defining the phrase "valid self-initiation" that I would accept.
:T I forgot I was taking to the Language Police.

In what way would you accept the phrase self initiation as valid?

[DebLipp]

:T I forgot I was taking to the Language Police.

In what way would you accept the phrase self initiation as valid?

Here's (http://www.neopagan.net/Initiation.html) an absolutely wonderful essay on initation by Isaac Bonewits. Isaac will disagree with Ben G. -- 3 types, not two.

Now, to answer your question, Lunacie:

If you define initiation as a transformative inner experience, and if you define valid as meaning "it really was transformative" and/or as meaning "acceptable to the Gods," then the self-initiation is entirely subjective, between the individual and the Gods, and it is not my place to say whether or not it is valid.

But if you define "valid" as meaning "acceptable to specific traditions or denominations," or as "legitimate for gaining entry to initiatory traditions" or as meaning "providing evidence of knowledge, experience, skill, or status," then hell no.

[Lunacie]

I don't like the term self-initiation. I've gotten into arguments about this in the past with Ben G, because he sees the term "initiation" as wider and looser than I do. As far as I'm concerned, "initiation", in the context of Wicca or another mystery religion, refers to a specific rite of passage performed on you by an external person or group. By this definition, self-initiation cannot exist, because initiation is something that can only be delivered by somebody else.

I’ve taken part in several discussions about the concept of self-initiation and find myself agreeing with you.


Ben G argues instead that there's another definition of the word initiation which means a sort of spiritual epiphany, a moment when you suddenly make a huge leap in spiritual knowledge and experience, and that's something that can happen without other people. While I respect his difference of opinion, I believe that in the interests of clarity it's best to restrict the definition of initiation (in a Wiccan setting) to that of a ritual performed on you by others. A self-dedication, or a spiritual epiphany, are perfectly fine, but are different from an initiation.

I think “epiphany” is a perfect word for that moment of greater awareness, and sometimes that does occur during an initiation, but it’s not what the actual initiation is about really, it’s like a bonus. For me it happened the first time I worked with energy to create a shield and saw and heard the Goddess saying, “Welcome home, child of mine.” Initiation for me was much more solemn.



I agree that some people are dumbing down or watering down the religion, but I think it’s a huge generalization to say that all Eclectics or all Solitaries are doing that.

I agree, and I don't believe that I made that generalization. If I did, I take it back.


I’m sorry, I didn’t make it clear that I was referring to the posters I’ve been arguing with on the other board who do generalize and clump people into boxes with particular labels based on criteria I don’t find particularly valuable or honest.

[Ben Gruagach]

Here's (http://www.neopagan.net/Initiation.html) an absolutely wonderful essay on initation by Isaac Bonewits. Isaac will disagree with Ben G. -- 3 types, not two.

Thanks for that link -- it's a good article.

I'd argue though with Isaac that his first type (acceptance into a group) and third type (establishing a link in a spiritual chain of succession) are really just subtypes of the human-bestowed initiation. And the second subtype (his third type) is just a fancy-pants way of trying to describe the acceptance into an established group version into what sounds like a valid psychic or spiritual context.

[Lunacie]

If you define initiation as a transformative inner experience, and if you define valid as meaning "it really was transformative" and/or as meaning "acceptable to the Gods," then the self-initiation is entirely subjective, between the individual and the Gods, and it is not my place to say whether or not it is valid.

But if you define "valid" as meaning "acceptable to specific traditions or denominations," or as "legitimate for gaining entry to initiatory traditions" or as meaning "providing evidence of knowledge, experience, skill, or status," then hell no.
Thanks for your response. As I said in the previous post, the epiphany I had that the Goddess is real and cares about me was certainly a transformative experience, while my initiation into a Circle and thereby the religion of Wicca was almost anticlimatic. Of course, it took place over a longer period of time, with many conversations with my teacher and the other students, with the god and goddess, and with the elements, culminating in a solemn ceremony.

Like at high school graduation, having that piece of paper handed to me wasn't as "real" as doing the work for four years was. It was rather symbolic. Of course, I acknowledge that for other people initiation may well be more exciting or noteworthy.


So, to my next question, for anyone who cares to comment...

are there any other religions besides Wicca where initiation is part of the process of joining? I know Christians they have the ritual of baptism, but I think initiation and baptism are very different kinds of rituals.

[DebLipp]

Thanks for that link -- it's a good article.

I'd argue though with Isaac that his first type (acceptance into a group) and third type (establishing a link in a spiritual chain of succession) are really just subtypes of the human-bestowed initiation. And the second subtype (his third type) is just a fancy-pants way of trying to describe the acceptance into an established group version into what sounds like a valid psychic or spiritual context.
Oh heavens, go argue with him on HIS form. :) :D

[DebLipp]

Thanks for your response. As I said in the previous post, the epiphany I had that the Goddess is real and cares about me was certainly a transformative experience, while my initiation into a Circle and thereby the religion of Wicca was almost anticlimatic. Of course, it took place over a longer period of time, with many conversations with my teacher and the other students, with the god and goddess, and with the elements, culminating in a solemn ceremony.
The epiphany-as-initiation thing makes sense in the shamanic style initiations or the vision quest style initiations where you're basically thrown into the deep end of the ice cold pool and then the initiator walks away and you either live or die.

So, to my next question, for anyone who cares to comment...

are there any other religions besides Wicca where initiation is part of the process of joining? I know Christians they have the ritual of baptism, but I think initiation and baptism are very different kinds of rituals.
I would count Baptism. And Confirmation. And Bar/Bat Mitzvah. As well as the Orphic Mysteries, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the various Yoruban initiations (Voudon, Santeria, etc.). And plenty more. Initiation is a universal phenomenon.

[Ben Trismegistus]

The short answer is that there are two types of initiation, and those two types are often confused (sometimes on purpose in order to deceive.) The first type of initiation is the type that humans perform: it's a formal acceptance of a person into an established group. The other type is the "spiritual initiation" where you have an epiphany or take a discrete step in your spiritual growth. This second type involves an individual having some sort of contact with the Divine. This second type is bestowed by the Divine and in my opinion (and the opinion of people like Dion Fortune) is not something we humans can produce on demand.
Thanks for the clarification.

Thing is, Lunacie, Ben G and I are not actually disagreeing - I wholeheartedly admit that this "spiritual initiation" exists. I just believe, in the interests of not confusing people, that it should be called something else. :)

[Ben Trismegistus]

The epiphany-as-initiation thing makes sense in the shamanic style initiations or the vision quest style initiations where you're basically thrown into the deep end of the ice cold pool and then the initiator walks away and you either live or die.
But aren't shamanic and vision quest initiations still administered by an outside party? In other words, it would be the shaman or chief or whomever who would decide if the initiate met the criteria for completing the initiation, right? (This is an actual question, not a challenge - I'm not an authority on shamanic initiations.)

I would count Baptism. And Confirmation. And Bar/Bat Mitzvah. As well as the Orphic Mysteries, the Eleusinian Mysteries, and the various Yoruban initiations (Voudon, Santeria, etc.). And plenty more. Initiation is a universal phenomenon.
And in the secular world, there's things like graduation ceremonies.

[Ben Gruagach]

Thanks for the clarification.

Thing is, Lunacie, Ben G and I are not actually disagreeing - I wholeheartedly admit that this "spiritual initiation" exists. I just believe, in the interests of not confusing people, that it should be called something else. :)

I agree too -- but unfortunately the word initiation has been used for a long time to mean both those things. And in many cases, people have tried to present themselves as initiatiors who do indeed grant both things to their initiates.

Since the terminology is already well entrenched we just have to live with it at least for now. But it does help if we understand the implications of the word and can see how confusing the two main types can be a problem.

[Ben Gruagach]

But aren't shamanic and vision quest initiations still administered by an outside party? In other words, it would be the shaman or chief or whomever who would decide if the initiate met the criteria for completing the initiation, right? (This is an actual question, not a challenge - I'm not an authority on shamanic initiations.)

From my reading of shamanism, in some cases there is a person who sends the postulant off to do their vision quest or whatever and in that sense fills the role of some type of initiator. But it also happens that a shaman's initiation is the result of an experience (often a near-death one) that did not have any involvement with another shaman. Sometimes a shaman was identified in a community by the other community members because that particular person had a near-death experience and was therefore "initiated" -- and only after that was noticed they might then be sent off to some known shaman for formal training. But they were already a shaman -- just not a formally trained one.

[DebLipp]

From my reading of shamanism, in some cases there is a person who sends the postulant off to do their vision quest or whatever and in that sense fills the role of some type of initiator. But it also happens that a shaman's initiation is the result of an experience (often a near-death one) that did not have any involvement with another shaman. Sometimes a shaman was identified in a community by the other community members because that particular person had a near-death experience and was therefore "initiated" -- and only after that was noticed they might then be sent off to some known shaman for formal training. But they were already a shaman -- just not a formally trained one.
All true. Also a vision quest might happen in response to an exterior experience (turning a particular age) or an inner calling, without being prompted by an outside person, although there is normally some sort of elder you would go to afterwards. The thing about these sort of initiations is that you can fail.

[Ben Gruagach]

All true. Also a vision quest might happen in response to an exterior experience (turning a particular age) or an inner calling, without being prompted by an outside person, although there is normally some sort of elder you would go to afterwards. The thing about these sort of initiations is that you can fail.

The failure part isn't universal in shamanic initiations. It certainly is a part in cases where you purposefully go out to try and have the experience (as in going out for a vision quest.) But in some of these shamanic initiations it's something that just happens to the person who is declared an initiated shaman -- it could be having gone through an extreme fever, being severely injured but surviving, or being in some sort of accident and getting through it. These are "trials" that the Divine is seen to have imposed rather than ones that the humans sought out. I guess in these cases the people who failed the trials are just plain dead so don't get the