Reader-Inspired Topic #6 - Definition Soup

I recently had a very interesting and thought-provoking question posed to me via email (yes, I checked my email, don't be so shocked).  The submitter expressed that she was pleased to see panentheism included in my definition of Wicca, and mentioned that it was a pretty rare phenomenon, as was the idea of focusing on the Wheel of the Year as a personal journey and relationship with the environment instead of as a myth cycle.  She mentioned that most writers emphasize Wicca as an immanent (pantheistic or polytheistic) religion.

Her question was, in essence, where do I draw the line between Wicca and more general NeoPaganism?  At what point do a person's beliefs stray so far off into left field that they no longer really qualify as Wiccan?

Well, it depends on who you ask.  If you asked some hardcore traditional Wiccans, they'd probably tell you I'm not a "real" Wiccan, and neither are most of my American Eclectic brethren, for reasons ranging from not having the proper lineage to not practicing in the nude.  To those narrow-minded folk I say "Get over it, Wicca's evolving and it's too late to stop it." 

Still and all, we do have to have some generally-accepted guidelines, otherwise any nutcase with an athame can call himself a Third Degree Priest and start a coven that exists specifically to get him laid...

Oh, wait.  People already do that.

I agree to a certain extent with the "Keep Wicca Traditional" crowd in that without the rules, there's not much of a game, and with so much freedom and eclecticism taking over Wicca, there are bound to be people who abuse it.  The mistake I think people make is in thinking that rules and lineages are going to "save" Wicca from the undesirable element; it's too late for that.  The secrets aren't that secret anymore.  If decades ago Alex Sanders hadn't made a point of getting his coven in every newspaper in Britain, there might still be some chance of keeping Wicca strictly within the ranks of the coven-initiated, but that's not what happened.  We're at the point now where we can either evolve, and those of us who are ethically responsible enough to guide others can help steer the course of that evolution, or we can perish.  Regardless there's no going back in the broom closet.

I think the main problem is one of definition--but not just of what Wicca is or isn't.  There are so many vocabulary words bandied about in Pagandom that have ambiguous or misunderstood meanings, it's hard to really communicate exactly what you believe without at least a handful of people giving you the Long Blink.

There are still a lot of people who use "Wicca" and "Pagan" interchangeably.  Personally I say "Pagan" when I'm talking about the NeoPagan "movement" as a whole, encompassing multiple traditions.  Still, I find that I am often guilty of making generalized statements about Pagans that only really apply to Wiccans, and I'm certainly not the only one who does so.  It pisses other Pagan traditions right off, I'm sure, to be semantically assimilated into a religion they don't practice.

There's even more confusion surrounding the words "Wicca" and "Witchcraft."  According to Gardner's writings, they're the same thing--Wicca is the "religion of the Witch."  Then there are some British Traditional Witches who do not identify as Wiccan who would certainly dispute that claim.  Most traditions in Europe tend to be farther on the polytheistic end of the theological scale, leaning heavily toward immanence.  Several authorities from the Alexandrian and Gardnerian neighborhood (most notably Janet Farrar) have been heard to state that Wicca is becoming more and more polytheistic as it evolves.

I don't really see that; but then, Farrar is considerably more traveled than I am and has seen a larger cross-section of the Wiccan world, so she may well be right.  My observation has been that as Wicca matures it leans more toward a panentheistic view of Deity.

The problem is that most people still don't know what the word panentheism means; it's a relative newcomer to the larger religious discourse, and many people don't know the difference between panentheism and pantheism.

Pantheism by definition "is the view that everything is of an all-encompassing immanent abstract God; or that the universe, or nature, and God are equivalent."

Panentheism, on the other hand, "is the theological position that God is immanent within the Universe, but also transcends it. It is distinguished from pantheism, which holds that God is synonymous with the material universe."

(Definitions courtesy of Wikipedia)

In a strictly immanent, pantheistic view, Deity is the Universe, but there is nothing beyond it, nothing transcendent.  In a panentheistic view, Deity is both immanent and transcendent, existing in all that we know and all that we cannot know.

Most Wiccan rituals and liturgy are designed around an immanent polytheistic view, probably because it's much easier to write a ritual that approaches a deity like a person.  That is why we have relationships with specific deities, after all--the totality of the Divine is just too big and impersonal.  This may be why, as people advance past the available training and literature, many find themselves drawn away from Wicca itself and toward something less theologically confining--I've heard a riddle to this effect: 

What do you call a Fourth Degree Wiccan? 
A Buddhist.

As I've ranted before, Wicca needs its advanced practitioners and elders to step up and do some writing of their own, and help our religion grow so that people don't get to a certain stage, realize that to keep learning they're going to have to look to other paths, and throw the baby out with the bathwater instead of bringing those ideas into Wicca and helping it evolve.  Anyone, regardless of tradition or pedigree, can influence the future of Wicca--that's one of the greatest things about it.

To get back to the subject at hand:

In America the words "Wicca" and "Witchcraft" are not used interchangeably by as many people, as there are so many varied traditions here that want to be associated with one term but not the other.  You'll see Witches who aren't Wiccan, Wiccans who aren't Witches, and people who use neither term but who could be described pretty accurately with either.

It's enough to make your head spin. 

Then there are terms like "NeoWicca" used to describe American Eclectics--I personally hate this term, as it is almost always used in a derogatory sense.  All Wicca is "neo." 

Therein lies another problem, where there are still large sections of the Wiccan population--including several prominent authors--who believe the Murray hypothesis with, well, religious zeal, and others who feel threatened by the idea that Wicca does not date back to the time of the Supposed Peaceful Matriarchy.  You can probably tell I come down pretty firmly on the side of Hutton and other historians who think Wicca is based on ancient ideas but is not itself ancient.  Disagree with me all you want.  No matter what evidence I've had thrown at me, it still just doesn't add up.  Frankly, at the end of the day, I don't care if Wicca is millennia old or was dreamed up last week by hamsters on acid; it's a valid path, and I find its youth inspiring.  But as I said, mine is not the only opinion. 

I draw a line between my own brand of Witchcraft and that practiced by the average village Witch two hundred years ago.  Even if she was secretly a Goddess-worshipper in disguise, I doubt her practice and mine would have looked much alike.  We live in a modern world with modern technology and modern problems, and Wicca is a modern religion that has arisen in response to our estrangement from the natural world and the Divine feminine.  Just because something is old does not make it better, nor does it automatically make it viable in our lives.  Thousands of years ago maybe there was a peaceful matriarchy, but unless it had pizza delivery and iPods, I'd rather stay in a century where I can vote.

Because the word Wicca is no longer being used to describe every kind of Witch, a number of groups who used to identify as Wiccan have stopped doing so in recent years.  Case in point, Dianics:  by most definitions wherein Wicca requires reverence to both masculine and feminine deity (a deal-breaker, as far as I'm concerned), Dianism is not Wicca.  Dianics these days seem to agree, and have largely distanced themselves from the word to paint a more accurate picture of their path.

So. What makes a Wiccan a Wiccan? 

Well, I've already written an essay called Foundations of Wicca that addresses my definition, but I do feel it fair to point out this is my definition, and that plenty of people would argue me to my grave over it.  Also, I wrote the essay several years ago, before I began formulating EarthDance, so my opinions have shifted a little.

My Wicca is not a hard polytheism.  It reveres Goddess and God, who come to us in myriad forms for myriad reasons.  I hold a rather paradoxical view of Deity, in that I believe the faces of the gods are aspects of something that is everywhere and nowhere, in the world and beyond it, faceless yet having every possible face. 

At the same time, however, I feel that anything given reverence by thousands of people over thousands of years has a power of its own, and so I often relate to the deities themselves as if they were individuals with their own personalities--all while understanding they are a means of communication between myself, who cannot comprehend the Divine in all its splendor, and the Divine, who wants to connect to me as much as I want to connect to Him/Her/It.  In that way, I feel that polytheists are just as right as monotheists; it's all a matter of perception.  The only thing that bugs me is when either end of the spectrum tells me I'm an idiot for believing/not believing in multiple gods (which both have done, on more than one occasion).

I am a mystic.  I believe that the sacred transcends any category we can put it in, but that it also enters into those categories and becomes real.  The emphasis on mysticism--direct contact with a Holiness that cannot be contained by human language--is one thing that will make my tradition a little different from some others; I feel that the more I mature spiritually the more mystical I become, and the more willing I am to reach across dividing lines between religions and traditions and find the beauty, and value, in all. 

How does Wicca differ from other NeoPagan traditions?  That's a tougher question, because many NP trads started life as offshoots of Wicca that took on a life and flavor of their own.  Often the difference comes down to the number of deities, whether or not a tradition is a reconstruction of a specific ancient culture's religious practices, and what tools, trappings, and holidays are important to the tradition.  The biggest distinction, in my experience, is the view of the practitioners themselves.  What do they call themselves?  If a tradition claims not to be Wiccan, well, I'm not going to argue. 

On the other hand, in my opinion--and this is exactly that, an opinion--in order to qualify as a Wiccan tradition, a trad should:

- revere Deity as both masculine and feminine
- be initiatory (I'll talk about this more in depth later)
- adhere to an ethical standard that includes (but hopefully is not limited to, or limited by) the Wiccan Rede
- hold observances in sacred space, via a cast Circle
- celebrate the seasons through Sabbats and Esbats (number and dates may vary)
- work with a system of at least the four basic metaphysical Elements
- consider all practitioners equal with regard to our relationship with the gods (groups will generally hierarchies, but every member is entitled to and capable of connecting with Deity)
- consider each individual practitioner responsible for his or her own behavior and spiritual growth
- call itself Wiccan

Any one of these traits alone doesn't make your path Wiccan; it's the combination of all of them that creates a cobbled path out of multiple stones.  There are other things I could add to the list--belief in some form of reincarnation, for example--but the above are the things I feel are most characteristic of Wicca.  The way each is expressed gives a tradition its own unique flavor. 

I suppose that, in summation, I should say that I find it hard to draw a line between Wicca and other forms of NeoPaganism, because there isn't a clearly demarcated line; it's more of a vast and ever-shifting grey area that depends highly on self-definition. 

By the same token, there is no required way to relate to Deity in Wicca--there is no law that states you must be pantheistic, or panentheistic, or polytheistic, or anything.  The convention is that to be Wiccan one must revere both feminine and masculine Deity.  That's really as far as it goes--there's so much variation that to narrow it any further than that would disqualify a good 70% of the groups out there. 

Because there is no regulatory agency that determines what is and isn't Wicca (despite some groups' claims to have such authority), we have the freedom (and responsibility, which unfortunately a lot of people don't take very seriously) to chart our own course and define our own experiences.  This I'm sure drives a lot of people up the wall. 

Personally? I wouldn't have it any other way.

Comments

[Janis]

Last month, I saw a Wiccan woman on CNN. It was that pentagram on the military gravestone thing, and she actually said, "If I were a witch, I'd be able to just cast a spell and get what I want." and I felt the usual twitch over my eye starting up again.

The reporter covered the story VERY well and I was just starting to feel all warm and fuzzy and then the subject of the story had to go and say that. I understand that her personal definition of Wicca didn't include being a witch but I do sort of feel she has a responsibility, being in the public eye, to not badmouth related paths.

We get a bad enough rap without having infighting. I've been part of various gay, lesbian, and trans communities for years, and the same thing happens there. I think we should all focus on our similarities, in our different paths, in our lives, in how we worship, and celebrate the differences for making us unique, not for wedging us apart.

[Melissa]

The idea of people equating Paganism with Wicca really bugs me- I don't see the need to divide the Divine into God and Goddess, and I have issues with the rede- its just not my path to take. I haven't run into any of this myself, though.

The definition thing is a huge pain, though. What's the point of introducing yourself to someone as a Witch or a Wiccan if you then have to explain what you mean by 'Witch' or 'Wiccan'? I also don't think it can ever truly be resolved, because no-one has the authority to force a definition onto anyone else.

I've needed to define Paganism for my Honours thesis, and what I've come up with is only slightly more cohesive than your definition soup- after one turfs 'nature worshipping' (because recons tend to reject this), which leaves 'has a pluralistic worldview' and 'not monothesist'; and somewhere there's a line between what's Pagan and what's pagan, and there are huge holes in it. I need to look at Paganism from a different angle, I think.

[attrice]

I recently found your blog and I just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying all of your posts.

Anyway, I was curious about your ideas regarding the masculine/feminine polarity in Wicca. I agree that it is an essential part of Wiccan theology, but it's the one that sort of keeps me in more general neo-paganism despite being drawn in other ways to Wicca. I've just never seen male/female as being a polarity. In my opinion, masculinity and femininity don't really have much to do with sex except in the ways certain traits have been assigned to each gender in our society. So what I struggle with is why it is necessary then to have a Goddess and a God. The balancing of energies...the celebrating of the opposite ends of different spectrums etc... I understand that, but I guess I don't see a way to square the idea of mine that masculinity/femininity don't have anything to do with gender with the idea that a balanced theology have both a god and goddess.

Gah, sorry to just vomit all over your comments. Really though, from what I've read you seem like someone who has honestly thought these issues through so take it as a compliment that I'd love to hear your thoughts about all of this (if you have the time of course!)

[sopka]

I love your site Dianne. I want to ask you if there are any older practitioners of the craft that are doing Knot magic It is an ancient form of magic that witches in ancient to present times used to help sailors to control the wind and tides. Also ancient priestesses could control weather supposedly by braiding and knotting their hair is anyone trying to update this this magic ,not to control weather of course, but for good luck spells and healing I use some in my making of religious pendants but I am flying blind when I do so.

[Jess]

Thank you :)

I like the idea that everyone can define the religion as fits with their personal philosophy and practice. I guess I fit into one of those gray areas between groups--the interstices--but that's the location of culture; why should religion be any different? Wicca is a young religion, so it makes sense that it's boundaries are not yet clear, and may never be, and perhaps that is a good thing.

[BlackHawk, aka Bob James]

I had to chuckle at the joke/riddle about the 4th Degree Wiccan. It's all so very true!

My wife, my HPS of many years, finally hit the wall within the Craft a little over 3 years ago. She felt that Wicca had nothing more to offer her, so she went seeking. Fortunately, one of the midwest's few Tibetan Buddhist monasteries is located in Oregon, WI... just 10 minutes from our house.

Her decision to transition from being a Wiccan priestess with a deep interest in Buddhist philosophies, to a Buddhist with a history as a Wiccan priestess was very traumatic for us both. It was a struggle for me not to feel abandoned (we practiced Wicca from the Protean Family line, and only priestesses lead covens), and there have been times that I have felt the pull to make the transition myself. But my *calling* is here, within the Craft, and I've come to realize that a lot of that calling is tied up with bringing some of the Buddhist teachings and concepts into Wicca. Perhaps it'll all come to nothing, but that's where my heart and intuition are taking me.

Anyway, great post. Love your work. In fact, I just started a book study group here in Madison, WI, and our first book is The Circle Within.

[TerraGreenwitch]

Dianne,
Reading your comments today was like reading what I have discovered over the last seven years. I have become more of a mystic, and am open to learning from all paths. I consider myself a Witch, a solitary, an eclectic. I have a great love for Wicca, and see it in a very similar way that you do...but I have held back from defining myself as Wiccan due to all the infighting about what is and isn't, who is and isn't. I don't have time for that, I'm busy having a relationship with the Divine! Your post today helps. I enjoy your blog, your LJs, and I look forward to much more. (And btw, I have a dear friend who is now...Buddhist. Yup, she's fourth degree, for sure.)

Terra

[Cathy]

I, too, am curious about your ideas regarding the male/female dichotomy in Wicca. Like Attrice, the notion of male and female being in opposition to each other (as well as all the other either/or binaries in Wicca) has kept me as a Pagan. Is there a reason for the duality? Or is it just because that's how Gardner believed? It's ok if "Gardner says so" is the answer--I've just never heard an answer.

[Heath]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this article as well as all the comments. I echo much of it personally, as I am now 44 and many things, including my outlook on life and the Cosmos has matured. I am a Witch, the term Kitchen Witch actually really does apply, my practice is very simple and is mostly based on prayer to Goddess and God. I suppose if I had to say Wiccan or Not Wiccan, it would be Wiccan, but only in the simplest sense (cringe if you like, but Cunningham remians dear to my heart, for his gentleness and simplicity). I am 44, I have known/felt/believed I was a Witch for about 41 of those years. It has been less than 20 years since I ever heard the word Wicca, or Tradition, etc. When I first discovered the "Pagan" (I hate that word, I am NOT what it generally means, look for my heated posting in Comments on another of Ms. Sylvan's essays) community I got all cought up in definitions and was I doing it right, and am I an Elder now or should I call myself a Priest? AAAARRRRRRGGGGHHHHHHH! At any rate, it is so refreshing to know that there are others out there thinking and feeling and QUESTIONING like I am. Keep it up. I think a great way to connect with the Divine is to continually ask it if it is really there, etc. Does this make sense?

[Heath]

Dear Attrice,

The only book I have ever seen with a chapter on Knot Magic (other than a few that reference the old three or four knot spell to call the wind, the gale, the hurricane) is Scott Cunningham's Earth Power. A very simple book on magic, but according to him, his most popular. It is still after 25 years my favoite. Basically knot magic is simple, tying knots to set the spell. I used to do them quite often with strands of silk (I worked in a very expensive fabric store and when the raw silk frayed I kept the strings). Just remember what knotted cord is for what. I think the only way to try and release or "break" hte spell for whatever reason is to bury it so it can decompose or burn it. Hope this helps.

Heath