Semantics

Choose Your Path Wisely

NOTICE: This work replaces my article entitled Traditional vs. Eclectic: We're Not "All One Wicca", as that essay no longer accurately reflects my thoughts on the subject.

When I first attempted to write a coherent definition of Wicca, it was some time in 2001 or ‘02 for the first personal site I ever put any real time or effort into (constructing that site is also how I first learned HTML, btw). I said that “the majority of Wicca is Traditional.” Was that naļve or misinformed of me? Possibly; I’d only recently entered the online world, had probably read only one or two books on Wicca or Paganism (if that), and had no real concept of how wide-spread Eclectic practices may have been (even though Cunningham’s books for Solitaries had been out for years at this point, and if memory serves Ravenwolf had begun publishing by this time as well).

The next time I really took a critical/editorial look at the definition, I not only changed “majority” to “basis,” but also moved some points to the “Wicca” section from the general “Pagan” section (I had both in the piece). I also made mention of Druidry and Asatru to illustrate the distinction between Paganism and Heathenry.

Now, for over a year I’ve been a member of "wiccan" on LiveJournal, which uses a more rigid and narrow definition than I’d thus far written. But, what I liked about this definition especially was the clear and concise distinction between Traditional and Eclectic practices and practitioners. So, by virtue of being in that community, I began to adopt their definition in my personal usage. I’ve since written an article that appeared on WitchVox essentially explaining and defending this definition (the aforementioned piece, for posterity's sake preserved here).

However, from the get-go there were things in this definition that conflicted me. Most prominently of these was that it excluded me. Is that a selfish sentiment? Possibly, but hear me out; I may not be an initiate of a BTW Tradition (part of the community’s definition), but I was raised by parents who are, and from about the age of four or five I was taught non-oathbound, age-appropriate, Outer Court type Wiccan material. Do my parents' spiritual choices then grant me a birthright to oathbound material, or even initiation? No, of course not. But I do feel I have some claim to being considered a Wiccan regardless of what one’s personal definition may be.

In the last few months, I’ve become active on a Yahoo! Email list that uses the same definition of Wicca. Recently, the topic has come up on the list whether or not one can raise children Wiccan. My initial reaction was, “Yes, of course - I was after all!” But it was pointed out in the course of the conversation that, according to the definition used, it was not in fact possible since children are rarely, if ever, initiated before adulthood (I’m told it has happened that children have been initiated at a young age, but then not included in rituals or other Coven activities until adulthood).

All this lead me to discuss the topic with my mom (who is a mentor, teacher, inspiration, confidante, and trusted friend to me, as well as my mother). I asked her not only what she thought about the list discussion (and as I already knew, she does consider it possible to raise children Wiccan), but also what her definition of Wicca entailed. Here’s what she said to me…

~ Reverence of Goddess AND God, together and equally
~ God forms/names must be European in origin (she said this can include Egyptian Gods since there is evidence they had contact with Britain; some samples of ancient Egyptian bronze were made from native copper and British tin. She stressed that Native American spirits and Deities, and those native to India and Asia, are NOT Wiccan and essentially should not be worked with in a Wiccan context)
~ Belief that the Gods can be directly contacted
~ Having a reciprocal relationship with the Gods
~ Understanding the symbolism and story of, and celebrating, the Sabbats
~ Belief in the effectiveness of Magick

She also stated that, for her, belief is more important than practice, that practice is a only a factor in determining Tradition, not whether one is Wiccan. In that same vein, she said she feels that initiation is only necessary for becoming a member of a Tradition, not for being Wiccan. A point she made specific to the list discussion, was that child can be called Christian without undergoing certain rites (communion, specifically), and so the same holds true for children raised in Wicca.

After thinking on this a bit, I had things I’d personally add to her “requirements…”

~ General ritual format includes calling the Quarters, invoking the Gods, a section for the ritual purpose (celebrate the Sabbat or Esbat, work Magick, etc.), Cakes and Wine, and then banishing Quarters at closing
~ The Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law are given some measure of importance
~ To add to contacting the Gods: Make actual use of that tool. Also, it’s important to realize that one doesn’t need an intermediary, but will sometimes need a teacher or guide for the contact to be safe and successful
~ To add to reciprocal relationships: Ones does not need to grovel before the Gods, but instead willingly serve Them (if one finds one’s self serving Gods that never give back, it may be time to find “new” Gods to work with)

I realized too that a person can be Christian without ascribing to a specific denomination or attending a specific church, so long as their beliefs include that Christ died for their sins and that belief in Him saves them, etc.. So, it stands to reason that a person can be Wiccan without belonging to a specific Tradition.

Another aspect of the comm and list’s definition is that Traditional Wicca works with specific Gods, which isn’t necessarily true of Eclectic practices, so there are different Gods for each of these systems. This is another point in which I don’t entirely agree, since I ascribe to a monist/pantheist/panentheist/non-dualist view of the Divine (i.e., “all Gods are one God”). So while it’s accurate to say that Traditional Wicca focuses on specific names, forms, and aspects of Deity, to say that the Gods are entirely different, isn’t entirely accurate from my viewpoint and understanding and experience.

Out of further curiosity the next day, I asked Mom if there are any aspects of practice (in ritual, specifically) that she feels are essential to Wicca…

~ Actually attempting contact with the Divine (meditation, channeling, scrying, etc.)
~ Calling the Guardians of the Watchtowers (I asked some clarifying questions, and what this boils down to is that calling the directions is important, but calling the Elements or other associations is secondary)
~ Inclusion of Cakes and Wine (I assume she also means including a libation to the Gods)
~ Casting a Circle wherein the ritual will be held

It struck me that this is quite similar to what I had thought a Wiccan ritual should include.

I knew I couldn’t espouse a definition that excludes me. Being selfish again? Reminiscent of a whiny fluffy? Both possible, but the definition I use cannot conflict with my personal feelings, otherwise, what's the point? I have now established such a definition, so click here to read it.