What isn't Wicca

[Blackthorn]

I found this thread really interesting to read through. I personally don't consider myself Wiccan, because my formative studies were in Druidry for many years before I even looked at Wicca. I found there to be some fundamental differences- but then again, Wicca is so varied. For instance, the Esbats really weren't focused on in my tradition. I haven't looked at Wicca that much, past authors like Cunningham and Buckland, and I kind of take what is helpful to me, and leave what is not.

This thread really made me think about WHY I avoid the Wiccan label. I suppose it is partially do to what others have mentioned regarding the association with religion. I also feel like my very superficial glance at Wicca doesn't award me enough of a right to use that term.

This thread also made me think about what Wicca is. It seems to mean different things to different people. I know people who consider solitaries not trained in a traditional coven, not truly Wiccan. Eclectic practice seems to be pretty normal, now. I don't think I know any two Wiccans (outside of the same coven) who view the divine the same. I know Wiccans that don't even follow the rede. I know Christian Wiccans, and Wiccans who don't believe you can be a Christian and Wiccan. So what IS Wicca? (I just want to add the disclaimer: none of the above is my personal idea of what Wicca is.)

In terms of the 8 holidays- We follow the wheel of the year in my tradition, too. A lot of the ceremonial ideas between my tradition and Gardnerian Wicca, though very different NOW, can probably be traced back to similar sources. I know my tradition got a lot of ideas from what Gardner was doing. But it's not Wicca.

I'm not old enough to comment on this seriously, so I put it out there for the veterans among us: do you think this question would have much different answers were it asked 30 years ago? When Wicca was less "evolved" (fewer eclectic practitioners)? I feel like the traditionally trained Wiccans of the Gardnerian, Alexandrian, etc. variety would have a few solid answers as to what is and is not Wicca. When most information was oathbound, before we had authors writing for the "mainstream", before we had so many "uninitiated" (by traditional covens). Wicca seems to have changed so much in the past few decades (as it should, in my opinion), to be more inclusive to the point where it seems very easy to qualify under its umbrella.

Sorry for my scatterbrained post

[SnowCat]

I don't think the post is scatterbrained. I think some good points were brought up. It makes me think of pre and post, Vatican II Catholicism. I wore a hat to church on Sundays, I didn't eat meat on Fridays, and my mother dragged us to confession every other Saturday. Hymns were something for those heathen Protestants, unless of course, it was High Mass. The priest didn't face the congregation, and it was all in Latin. By the time I started moving away from Catholicism, 40 some years ago, guitar Masses were popular and the Mass would stop for everyone to give each other a sign of peace. Too touchy feely for my taste.

I think traditions that don't evolve, don't survive. People learn and grow spiritually, and trying to keep them in little boxes usually isn't successful. Unless of course, you convince the crowds that life outside the box leads to a fate worse than death.

Snow

[Siona]

In terms of the 8 holidays- We follow the wheel of the year in my tradition, too. A lot of the ceremonial ideas between my tradition and Gardnerian Wicca, though very different NOW, can probably be traced back to similar sources. I know my tradition got a lot of ideas from what Gardner was doing. But it's not Wicca.

This is a very important point, and it goes both ways. Wicca shares a lot of roots with other traditions - Gardner pulled heavily from the popular ceremonial magic of the time, and from older pagan traditions that reconstructionists and others also are building from. Heck, originally Gardner's Wicca only celebrated four of the eight sabbats (which he pulled from earlier pagans), he himself was inspired by another group to add in the equinoxes and solstices. There was a lot of sharing of ideas and information between Wicca and other traditions both then as it was forming, and now as it's growing... and I think that's all a good thing. Nothing wrong with sharing information, borrowing ideas, etc - but just as Wicca didn't become Thelema (or whatever other traditions it borrowed from), other traditions do not become Wicca because they have shared ideas. They can have their differences, as well.

And just because one feels more at home in a non-Wiccan path, it doesn't necessarily mean they're trying to avoid a label, or whatever else. A lot of people feel genuine pull to other traditions, and Wicca just doesn't work for them. Just like a Wiccan may not feel right in another tradition.

[Red Ember]

I don't really know what I am but I know that I do not follow a Wicca path. There is a lot I like about Wicca, the name, respect for nature, inner work and spells, the symbols used. But I do not follow the Wiccan Rede, find it difficult to worship Gods/Goddesses or work with tools and feel fake if I try to follow a set script or cast a circle.

I do however have a lot of respect for the Wiccan path and most of my reading is along these lines.

[Imperious]

I know Wiccans that don't even follow the rede.

This type of thing just makes me sad. My views on "Christian Witchcraft" aside, not following the Wiccan Rede means, effectively, that you can't be Wiccan. As hinted elsewhere, it's something of a deal breaker because it's an absolute foundation of that religious world view. Those claiming to be Wiccan, but not subscribing to its most basic and central tenet, are either confused or trying to cynically absolve themselves of any responsibility.

More worryingly, it's a type of sloppy thinking that makes Paganism an easy target for would-be detractors.

Naturally, I preface this post with:

This is my opinion.

[Becks]

I share and second that opinion. The Wiccan Rede IS the foundation of Wicca. It's the mandate that one agrees to in being Wiccan. If one does not abide by it-then as you say Imperious, they aren't Wiccan.

However, now some people use the term 'wiccan' interchangably to mean simply someone who follows a pagan year or follows a pagan year and practices magic. Maybe they are consciously making the decision to reuse the word from Old English, and reclaim it from Gardner? I doubt that is the majority. I think many folks like the way it sounds and haven't bothered to read about the etymology and history of Wicca.

[Imperious]

However, now some people use the term 'wiccan' interchangably to mean simply someone who follows a pagan year or follows a pagan year and practices magic. Maybe they are consciously making the decision to reuse the word from Old English, and reclaim it from Gardner? I doubt that is the majority. I think many folks like the way it sounds and haven't bothered to read about the etymology and history of Wicca.

I think there's certainly some of that (second point) going on.

As for people consciously taking the Old English word from Gardner... I'm not sure that's a legitimate thing to do. Wicca, as a religious view, didn't exist prior to him. I think it's challenging to make a solid argument for "taking the word back".

[Becks]

I only meant that in terms of the words use. He didn't invent the word wicca. The words did exist before him if I'm not mistaken.

[Silent Stream]

I started out learning about wicca, after reading a few books decided that I was more a ''Traditional'' Witch so to speak, I think a good term might be eclectic. I view wicca somewhat like a religion and as such It has to have rules,do's and don'ts. That was kinda a turn off for me because Ive been in the Pentecostal church for some 12 years,as a pentecostal i thought of myself as a christian ,like a baptist would,or a catholic would we all worshiped a little diffrent from each other but still believed in the same God.Still all followed basic set of rules if you will. That was were I was kinda reading some other material and was grateful for a starting point in wiccan ways but my walk has turned into my own religion so to speak I took what I could find palatable and made it mine.Some might hate that statement .''Your eclectic'' you steal from others ways and beliefs and make them yours. Yes you would be exactly right Ive created my own path my own religion,I worship my celtic Gods and Goddess the way I see fit. I make no apologies for this nor do I hold anything against covens or wiccans who only follow their own rules and such. Most of us here might have a christian background and might know what im taking about.So there it is,in all its nakedness I follow my own path and yes use information from others to enhance my own experience. And Im fine with that,the wiccan freinds I have are fine with that to0! as like the christians we are all ultimately seeking communion with the Creators of the universe threw the Gods and Goddess. Silent Stream

[Xiao Rong]

This type of thing just makes me sad. My views on "Christian Witchcraft" aside, not following the Wiccan Rede means, effectively, that you can't be Wiccan. As hinted elsewhere, it's something of a deal breaker because it's an absolute foundation of that religious world view. Those claiming to be Wiccan, but not subscribing to its most basic and central tenet, are either confused or trying to cynically absolve themselves of any responsibility.

More worryingly, it's a type of sloppy thinking that makes Paganism an easy target for would-be detractors.

Hmm. I'd have to disagree with you, as someone who is now getting back into the "Wiccan" label. I don't consider the Rede to be so central to Wicca that it's a dealbreaker if you don't follow it. (I'm not going to debate the history and etymology of the word "Wicca", which I don't find particularly interesting or important to how we use the word today, especially since it has changed so much in meaning).

I appreciate that it is a very liberating moral standard compared to many Christian values, which explains why Wicca is so appealing to ex-Christians. My personal feelings towards the Rede are that it is simultaneously a very minimal ethical standard (not to strive to do good, but merely to avoid being bad) and an impossible precept (can you really go through life without harming ANYTHING?). I now view the Rede as a nice reminder to take responsibility for your actions, but that's about it. I much prefer Carol Christ's 9 Ethical Touchstones, which challenge people to do more than "no harm", but to leave a positive impact on the world.

One of the things I like best about Wicca and Paganism in general is that it focuses on orthopraxy ("right practice") rather than orthodoxy ("right belief"). I think it is a bias of Abrahamaic, particularly Protestant, faiths to assume that there is One Single Thing for those religions, whether that's submission to Allah or accepting Jesus Christ. And if you don't do that One Single Thing, then you can't be ____.

For most of history and many religions around the world, religion isn't about the One Single Thing, but about your culture, what you do every day, what you celebrate, what you value. I can't tell you what the One Single Thing is for Buddhism, or Hinduism, Judaism, or most indigenous spiritualites. Similarly, I would be reluctant to reduce all of Wicca down to the 8 words of the Wiccan Rede. I consider the 8 Sabbats centered around the solar cycle, for instance, to be equally important and expressive of Wicca's core values as the Wiccan Rede. If I had to choose any text that encapsulates the ethos and principles of Wicca, I'd choose the Charge of the Goddess -- but that, too, I don't think is meant to be taken literally or is a "dealbreaker" if you don't "accept" it, whatever that means.

In my opinion, Wicca is a constellation of practices and beliefs, including elements such as the Wheel of the Year, the Wiccan Rede, the Lord and the Lady, the Charge of the Goddess, practicing magic, being initiated into a coven, etc. Not all Wiccans incorporate all of these elements, and indeed one of the strengths of Wicca (and Paganism in general) is that there is room for a wide diversity of practices and beliefs. If someone practices some or all of those elements and calls themselves a Wiccan, I see no reason why I would dispute that or tell them they can't have identify as such.

[Silent Stream]

I think one of the best reads Ive done is "The Wiccan Myteries '' by Raven Grimassi This seems like wicca is or was away to preserve as you will the old religion and old ways,its a good read, still so many solitary practitioners out their that dont belong to a coven' it would be like practicing christianity but never going to church,your going to have diffrent views and style of worship.Some christians would tell this person the had to go to church to be a true christian and thats not true.

[Silent Stream]

I think you have to start somewhere especially if your new to the craft wicca is a good place to start,learn and get a whole view if you will, to the painting, you can look at the painting and decide to leave it the way it is and be happy with it or take the brush and put in a few strokes of your own to make the painting more creative for you and maybe more attractive to you. im not trying to diminish wicca like its an entry level practice or something but we all have to be are own artist. And decide for ourselves wicca should be embraced and appreciated for its accomplishments and dedication to the old way.still its up to the painter whether or not he'd like to learn and maybe move on to his own practice,we all have to start somewere wicca is a foundation of of the canvas if you would like to see it that way, anyway just my thoughts.

[Imperious]

I'd have to disagree with you, as someone who is now getting back into the "Wiccan" label. I don't consider the Rede to be so central to Wicca that it's a dealbreaker if you don't follow it.

Thanks for the post, Xiao, it was thoughtful and eloquent.

For me, there has to be some central tenets to every title. It's just how language fundamentally works. If you choose to label something, in any way, there has to be certain characteristics that apply or else the title itself becomes meaningless.

I totally take your point about the Wiccan Rede, but I'm not being quite so literal. Clearly, there are problems with:

"An it harm none, do what ye will".

Not least the fact it's borrowed from Crowley, and misunderstood! But the principle is that you don't knowingly do harm to someone or something else, which is a pretty good baseline to "get out there and make a positive impact".

I do agree with your commentary on the sabbats, however, as well as some of your other thoughts regarding central tenets. I suppose my point is that I find the "anything goes" approach incoherent, and the Rede is part of what's sensibly considered central to organised Wicca.

[Xiao Rong]

For me, there has to be some central tenets to every title. It's just how language fundamentally works. If you choose to label something, in any way, there has to be certain characteristics that apply or else the title itself becomes meaningless.

Yes, that's very true. I just don't see the Rede as the only one, or the dealbreaker. For instance, imagine someone who has been initiated into a Wiccan coven (maybe is even the HP or HPs!), practices regularly with a Wiccan group, celebrates the Sabbats, casts spells, calls themselves a Wiccan ... but has some issues for whatever reason with the Wiccan Rede. Would you disqualify them as a Wiccan based on their opinions of the Rede alone?

Like I said, I think there are many central tenets to Wicca, including the Wheel of the Year, the Lord and the Lady, coven work, etc. And not all Wiccans will incorporate every single one of them. I think of Wicca more as, "If you checked 5 or more off this list, you might be a Wiccan!"

[Siona]

To me, the thing about the rede is it's not meant to be a law, even in Gardnerian Wicca. Rede means something more like advice, so if one chooses not to follow that particular bit of advice at all times, I don't think it's really necessarily a deal breaker in itself.