Wiccan Fundamentalists
 Most say the largest enemy to modern Witchcraft and Neo-Paganism is Fundamentalism, and they are right. But while many look at Fundamentalists and Zealots of other faiths like Christianity as this supposed enemy, the truth is the largest enemy is Fundamentalist thinking from within Neo-Paganism and Wicca's own ranks.
Wicca and, frankly, most Neo-Pagan traditions tend to be a fairly improvisational and open group of religions. The lack of an "authority" figure is probably one of the many things that drew me to Wicca in the first place. It's a faith that pulls more from personal experience than dogma, but that doesn't seem to stop certain members of the Wiccan community from attempting to dogmatize it.
I remember reading one particular essay on the wonderful site The Witches' Voice not that long ago that literally left me fuming. It was an article that explained to me that I wasn't really a Wiccan at all. It's quite a while since I dedicated my self to the craft, and I've seen people of all ages and experience harp on about one thing or another. What this person was though, was a Zealot. I decided to look up the writer's profile, and discovered this person was exactly the kind of person I thought she'd be.
It was a person brought up in a hereditary environment, indoctrinated from youth, I doubt she ever questioned its validity. It was true because she was told it was. There was no quest for personal meaning in Wicca like there is for so many who come to the faith from the outside. Going through this person's personal website I came to realize this person was in the inevitable "Chip on their shoulder" stage of their personal journey... which while we all went through it, weakens their writing for me. Also, I have to admit, I mentally dismissed her entirely the instant she described herself as a 'Juggalette.'
I can't help but make fun of Insane Clown Posse fans, I'm sorry.
Regardless of my dislike of what is loosely described as ICP's musical repertoire, I can't help but wonder how this might effect some person coming to grips with their spirituality, to be told their choices are invalid by an arbitrary personal definition that the majority of the community doesn't even agree with. Now, I am quite comfortable in my faith, so I just took it in stride, but not every person is as secure as I am. I thought this sort of thinking had died out a while ago. Solitary practitioners used to find themselves hard pressed to be accepted by the Wiccan community, but that was twenty years ago. These days we make up the majority of Wiccans around the world, and most are eclectics to boot. But despite this, I've recently been thinking about what can best be described as Fundamentalist Wicca. I admit, it has been there for a while, but I'm rather independent in my practice, so forgive me if I will on occasion ignore what the attitudes at large are in the community.
But I'm tired of ignoring this one. There are individuals I have run across who demand that anyone who isn't a British Traditionalist Wiccan isn't a Wiccan at all. For those unaware, British Traditional Wicca includes Gardnerian Wicca, Alexandrian Wicca and the like. British Traditional Wicca is a very narrow definition for Wicca. It is a very specific structure, and does not include established groups like Dianic Wicca, Celtic Wicca, Georgian Wicca, or Raymond Buckland's Seax-Wica. That's right, according to these people that since Buckland left his Gardnerian coven he must no longer be a Wiccan.
I wonder if they still own his big blue book.
These Fundamentalist Wiccans claim that if you cannot trace yourself to a British Traditional group via a direct lineage of initiations, you are not a real Wiccan. The funny thing is that Gardnerian Wicca, where British Traditional Wicca started, was itself culled from many sources, and by today's standards would be considered an eclectic path. Likewise, if one must be directly brought into Wicca through direct initiatory lineage, why did Doreen Valiente, one of the most influential people on modern Wicca, publish a self initiation ritual in her book Witchcraft for Tomorrow?
It's a ridiculous assessment and too narrow a definition for a beautifully diverse faith. The fact is, most Wiccans came to Wicca and were not raised in it - that includes British Traditional Wiccans as well. Many come to it because it is an alternative to the Zealotry they've encountered in certain Christian groups (which, to many, will often color our perceptions of what is actually a wonderful faith). But how can we claim to be enlightened when we express the exact same exclusive fundamentalism when they arrive on our doorstep?
Too often people fall into the trap of believing that just because something is older and established it is therefore more authentic. It's why for so long many people of Wicca clung to the idea that Wicca was a direct lineage from ancient pre-Christian European faiths. Now days most of us except the radical few have accepted that modern Wicca is a 20th century invention. It's because the age of a faith is not the point - it's the connection you feel when you draw energy into a circle. That connection doesn't care what words you spoke and how many have said them before you when you started the ceremony.
I don't want to sound like I'm invalidating British Traditional Wicca. That's not it at all. If a British Traditional Path is what fulfills a particular Wiccan's spiritual needs, then that is the path for them. The point is that people should pick those paths because they work for them better rather than because they've been around longer than a tradition a person constructs on his or her own. There's plenty of room for all of us under the big tent of Wicca, and the last thing we need in the community is hostility and exclusivity. Those are poisonous to growth, and can do nothing but hurt us.
Because we should have all learned by now.
Comments:
Really? Buckland's trad is not considered part and parcel to the whole thing? He was quite close to Gardner, if I recall, and was initiated by Gardner as a mutually agreed method for introducing it to the US. I guess I do agree that it wouldn't be true BTW in the sense that it's not British nor ever has been, but it's a pretty close lineage.
Eh, I digress. I don't actually care all that much about the intricacies and inheritance of initiatory Wicca anyway. Hard Gards drive me a bit out of my mind, actually. I generally use the term Neo-Pagan, myself. I'm a Wiccan by most non-fundamentalist views, but I'm borderline enough that I'm comfortable with avoiding the conflict.
That and I feel more and more that paganisms, both old and new, are quite similar in general theological tenets. I've felt that way for ages, but the book Pagan Theology really has cinched it for me. Envision Triumph of the Moon only focused more on theology and less on history. It's very non-dogmatic, while still having very valid points about paganism at large.
Meep
Buckland himself admittedly might still be considered a Witch by these people, but since Seax-Wica isn't British Traditional, there are some who don't consider those who follow it "truly Wiccan." It's ridiculous.
This whole article is one big straw man argument, with some scare tactics and ad hominem thrown in for good measure.
"Fundamentalist Wiccans" are the biggest threat to Wicca? Really? How are they a threat? In that they disagree with you and make you fume?
You seriously misrepresent the position of a lot of trad Wiccans, which is that 1) religious groups get to make their own rules about whom they recognize as part of the group, really, yes they do, and 2) words mean things, and in the case of the name of a religion, there's an awful lot of identity and personal investment tied up in the name.
You also gloss over the fact that Gardner came up with the word, so it doesn't matter what other people would call him now.
I *personally* think that redefinition of terms is part of normal social development, and "Wicca" is evolving to mean something different from what it meant formerly. But I also understand the point of view of the people who think something important is being lost when people hear "Wicca" and think Willow on "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." In any case, the issue is very much more complicated than you are presenting it here, and you do no one any good by oversimplifying it and insulting the people who disagree with you.
Fundamentalists from within are the largest threat to *any* religion. They bang on the drums and claim a moral superiority. They create division and mistrust. They create alienation.
It's the same reason Fundamentalist Christians make Christians look bad. How many Wiccans hold a negative view of Christianity just because a small percentage of them are over the top?
Gardner named the religion, but the word Wicca really does come from the Old English word for Witch. And of course it's ridiculous that people would think of Willow from Buffy when they hear the word Wicca -- the same with any popular fiction. But there is a percentage that defines it too narrowly, and that hurts us. Most importantly though, it's the people with the attitude that anything that isn't their tradition is inferior which hurts us.
BTW isn't the problem. I'm not BTW, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It's just that the most closed minded of Wicca flock to BTW since it seems more "established" in their mind. These are the people seeking moral superiority, and that is a problem.
"This whole article is one big straw man argument, with some scare tactics and ad hominem thrown in for good measure. "
It's an editorial page, in essence, and not a formal debate. I do realize that the public at large isn't aware of the difference between the two, but if you are going to use logical falacies to tear down an editorial page, you're barking up the wrong tree on a fundamental level. Pick up a newspaper editorial page sometime and let me know how much of it holds to the priciples of logical debate. This, being an informal, personal page has even less obligation to stick to those principles, though actually does a pretty decent job given that it is editorial.
That said you do at least have a point that they have some claim to what the term does and doesn't mean. But keep in mind as well that the terms 'witchcraft' and 'pagan' were terms started in a different group at a different time. Most modern witches and pagans don't fit at all into some of the multiple definitions of those terms.
I think you miss the point, however, in that Trae is not arguing as to whether or not they have the right to do so, though when it comes to words, no matter how personal they are, they really don't have that right.
The dangers of fundamentalist thought are pretty profound. Not the least of which is in the realm of public opinion. Often the strict, exclusive, and occasionally 'holier than thou' nature of fundamentalism in any form presents a somewhat negative view on the movement as a whole, fundamentalism included. For instance, I was often credited on religious debate boards for converting people to christianity better than the fundamentalist christians in that I often apologized for their insanity and presented a fairer picture of the faith. A view I thought it deserved.
The other aspect, which Trae mentions, is fostering division in the group as a whole. There certainly is an argument to be made that wicca has come to be too broadly defined. I hardly imagine any Wiccan would disagree with that. But drawing the lines strictly on initiatory lineage or specific practices ignores an awful lot of realities in modern paganism. Trae even mentions them in the article. Valiente's self-initiation ritual, the existance of Seax-Wicca which is a Gardner-approved deviation from Gardnerianism, the list goes on.
And how about Alexandrianism, which claims a distinct lineage while containing similar structures and practices. Sanders was initiated, true. But similarities aside, his tradition clearly deviates from Gardnerianism and claims no heredity from it. How is it that Alexandrianism is so easily accepted as genuine and the rest are not? simply because it's older as Trae suggests (also a logical falacy, by the way)? Because it claims a heritage, though not Gardnerian? Several trads claim that as well.
So the final point is that clearly the initiatory lineage doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule and clearly strict BTW practice is not either. So how are we to accept lines in the sand and the inevitable problems they cause when it appears the line doesn't universally apply?
I argue that we can't and we shouldn't. I think it's important to discuss it as it's important to understand what we mean by Wiccan, but it is not a black and white issue and shouldn't be made out to be that way. It wasn't then and it isn't now.
I think a better approach is to recognize the spiritual practices generally assumed to be Wiccan and realize that all Wiccans adhere to most of them yet most Wiccans, BTW Wiccans included, do not adhere to all of them. There are definitely some definitive quid pro quo beliefs that are non-negotiable, but aside from the very core characteristics I think it does a disservice to the body that is Wicca to canonically define it much further than that.
Meep
sorry to post such a ridiculously huge reply on your page, Trae. I'm too often guilty of that.
Oh, I have no problem with it. Y'know, if you ever feel like submitting an article to the section, I'd be happy to put it up too, y'know. 
I may, but as you may have noticed I'm more of a reactionary poster on the web. I write very little original material and mostly just reply to posts I don't agree with. I'll definitely think about it.
|
|
![Trae Dorn [dot] Com](/traedornproductionslogo-2025-web.png)
