Wicca vs Neo Wicca

[mydemand]

On a bunch of LiveJournal communities there has been much debate over Wicca vs Neo-Wicca, with many saying that someone is not Wiccan unless they have been initiated into a coven.

This post was made today :

http://www.livejournal.com/community/craftofthewise/37060.html

Thoughts?

B*B, Tiara

[MoonIsis]

Arg, this subject has just been beaten to death. See, I kinda disagree with this "essay".

"Books lie. You cannot learn Wicca from a book. You have been learning what most call "Neo-Wicca." Meaning New-Wicca. It is called this because it is a religion based off eclectic, watered-down, outer-court Wicca. I can't answer why books use the title "Wicca," though my best guess is the publisher believes more books will sell under the name "Wicca" rather than "Neo-Wicca."

I thought this statement was kinda well, rude. First you say that you can't learn it from a book, but then the next paragraph he says:

"To become a Neo-Wiccan, you study as much as you can from books claiming to be about Wicca. Along with that Neo-Wiccans perform a self-dedication rite in which they dedicate themselves to a Triple Moon Goddess, and a Horned God. Many celebrate the 8 Sabbats, and the 13 Esbats. Along with that, they tend to create a Book of Shadows and fill it with spells and rituals. No initiation is required to be a Neo-Wiccan. :"

??? I guess Christians didn't learn to be christian because they read the bible? Reading is a key part in learning anything if you ask me. If they read a book or a BOS passed down, it's still some form of literature. I don't know many people of a religious faith that didn't learn from reading. Hmmm...

This statement first sounded like he's saying you have to get initiated, but then at the end says that you don't? The statements are confusing.

I personally think some of the facts were good, but many would just get someone confused and upset to think that they aren't following the right path. I feel that the path will grow with time and you will find your own way of doing things with what fits you. Some people may not develop their path until later in life because of certain circumstances.

From reading here and elsewhere, I have learned much knowledge about many topics. The knowledge I learned will continue to shape my spiritual path as I see it being. Everyone has a path to follow and they can all be different. At least that is how I feel.

[Bec_W]

To be honest, I think Wicca itself is too young to claim that the way Gardener create it is the way it will and should be for all time. Look at any religion, they change as time progresses, Christianity didn't start off the way it's practiced now. I'm sure there were arguements just like this one within Christianity 50 odd years into it's life span.

The author of that post seems almost affronted by the fact that "neo wicca" has a larger following then "real" wicca. My answer to that is, of course it does. People can't follow what they can't learn!

[MoonIsis]

To be honest, I think Wicca itself is too young to claim that the way Gardener create it is the way it will and should be for all time. Look at any religion, they change as time progresses, Christianity didn't start off the way it's practiced now. I'm sure there were arguements just like this one within Christianity 50 odd years into it's life span.

I agree. There are so many arguments of "you don't do this so you are not wiccan". So if a Christian doesn't go to church does that not make them a christian? You are right, things do change. I finally learned that from getting it beaten into my head on this forum. :smash:


The author of that post seems almost affronted by the fact that "neo wicca" has a larger following then "real" wicca. My answer to that is, of course it does. People can't follow what they can't learn!

To be honest, the essay had a negative feel to it. I see how people may be mad at "fluffy bunnies" as they tend to call them, but instead of coming off as so negative towards newcomers, a more positive role would be to teach them. No one likes to be referred to as a fluffy I'm sure. :(

And G'day mate! Australia rocks! I will be going there in November. I can't wait. Will be there for 2 weeks. I'm interested in finding a few shops that sell wiccan supplies or books. I definetly want to get some stuff from your neck of the woods!

[PAGANFILES]

I'll probably gets some shots across the bow on this, but I've never met anyone that was Old Wicca--in that there was no Wicca with a Capital in my early years. When I think of old religions I think of millennia. On the Neo thing, in my opinion, it's mostly people trying to sell books so they have to come up with something unique.

Terry

[FeatherGoblinglimmer]

I will say this, there were a lot of good facts about wicca in the original post, kudos to the author. He/she is entitled to his opinion about things and i do agree with some of it. However i did agree more with the second post , in fact it pretty much sums up what i think. The analogy with catholicism and protestantism especially cinched it for me.

[Morr]

Wicca is WAY too young to already have a "Neo" attached to it, for describing a fresher branch within the religion...

Thats my humble opinion...

[Arinya]

Neo-pagan, fine. Neo-wiccan, not fine. Wicca isn't even a century old...when it is maybe I'll consider the idea of a neo-wicca. That, and I don't really see the difference between what the authors says is Wicca and Neo-Wicca besides iniation into a coven. He claims that you learn different things in a coven...but what these things are is not stated and this leads me to believe that perhaps there are things you would learn easier in a coven, but not things that you could not eventually discover as a solitary Wiccan.

[FairyMoon]

Neo-pagan, fine. Neo-wiccan, not fine. Wicca isn't even a century old...when it is maybe I'll consider the idea of a neo-wicca. That, and I don't really see the difference between what the authors says is Wicca and Neo-Wicca besides iniation into a coven. He claims that you learn different things in a coven...but what these things are is not stated and this leads me to believe that perhaps there are things you would learn easier in a coven, but not things that you could not eventually discover as a solitary Wiccan.
I agree with Arinya on this one. Plus, what about initiation? You do not need one to become a Wiccan. You may need one for a coven, as is stated above, but not to call yourself a Wiccan. An initiation to me is like a confirmation and accectance of a path. ( Did you get that? I'm a little sleepy.):zzz:

[mydemand]

I agree with Arinya on this one. Plus, what about initiation? You do not need one to become a Wiccan. You may need one for a coven, as is stated above, but not to call yourself a Wiccan. An initiation to me is like a confirmation and accectance of a path. ( Did you get that? I'm a little sleepy.):zzz:

I got that :)

Thing is, that's where the whole controversy lies. Many members of the LJ Wiccan communities are saying that someone isn't really Wiccan unless they are in an initiated coven - the link I provided up there is basically what they're shouting about.

There was this whole controversy (or, to borrow a fandom term, "wank") about this in another community recently, which led to the Wicca vs. Neo-Wicca distinction.

personally? I don't know what to think. ;P

B*B, Tiara

[FairyMoon]

Well, personally I think that a covens initiation is an intiation into that coven and their particular way of practicing Wicca. However, there are many ways to become a Wiccan. Not just by a Priestess. That is one of the beauties of Wicca and Paganism in general. You don't need anyone else to help you commune with the gods or cast spells or make any descision for you, right? So I feel the same way about calling youself a Wiccan. You don't need to be in a coven and have a Priestess initiote you into the religion to feel that you are a part of it and canuself Wiccan. ( Am I babbling?)

[Ben Trismegistus]

Speaking as an initiated Gardnerian Wiccan, I say NO, you do not have to be initiated into a coven to be a "true" Wiccan. Just like you do not need to get a college degree to know something about a particular subject, you do not need to obtain initiatory degree in order to be Wiccan. The purpose of the degree rituals is to train Wiccan clergy. After receiving your third degree (some say second), you are qualified to call yourself a High Priest/ess and run your own coven and grant your own degree rituals.

Additionally, full initiatory rituals are restricted to the more traditional sects of Wicca. Many traditions do not perform degrees, and therefore you can't say that one with degrees is better than one without.

HOWEVER, here's what you CANNOT do. You cannot proclaim yourself a Gardnerian High Priestess and start your own coven if you have not received initiations. You cannot perform a Gardnerian initiation on yourself. You cannot perform a Gardnerian initiation on others if you have not received those initiations yourself. Pretty obvious stuff really, but you'd be surprised at how often these rules are broken.

The problem with this "Wiccan FAQ" is that the author is one of those who believes that British Traditional Wicca is "real" Wicca, and everything that came afterwards is "fake" Wicca. I don't believe that myself. The non-BTW traditions are just different, that's all.

However, what the author refers to as "Neo-Wiccan" is what I like to call "Insta-Wiccan". By this, I mean those who want ONE book or ONE website to tell them absolutely everything about being a Wiccan, after which they'll consider their education complete. There are plenty of would-be Wiccans out there who don't realize that this religion is a life-long learning process. Your education is never complete - you can never read too many books, participate in too many open circles, or talk to too many mentors. Like most good religions, Wicca is a journey of self-discovery, a journey that never ends.

[Ron]

To be honest, I think Wicca itself is too young to claim that the way Gardener create it is the way it will and should be for all time. ! Gardener didn't create Wicca. He just exposed his traditions, which were takes of the traditions of a coven that he was initiated into. IMO, he created very little. But one could argue that he "created" his personal traditions. However, I do not believe this is the case.

Terynfydd.

[IvyWitch]

Personally I don't see the big deal about it being a requirement to join a coven. People who make this argument I assume don't quite realize how difficult that may be for some. There isn't always a coven of a particular tradition around a person's area, some people can't travel for many reasons, and just like within Christianity, the first (or only) church you find may not be the right one. Same thing with covens.

And, if we allow ourselves to fall into this "you must be in a coven" idea, then the next argument will be "you must be in a Gardenerian coven to be a real wiccan". Granted a lot of people say that already, which really makes me thing of fundamentalist Christians ("to be a Real Christian (tm) you must be born again protestant!). When did we get so wrapped up in who can and can't be a Wiccan? Did Wicca all of a sudden become some sort of elitist high school clique or some college sorority?

[MoonIsis]

Speaking as an initiated Gardnerian Wiccan, I say NO, you do not have to be initiated into a coven to be a "true" Wiccan. Just like you do not need to get a college degree to know something about a particular subject, you do not need to obtain initiatory degree in order to be Wiccan. The purpose of the degree rituals is to train Wiccan clergy. After receiving your third degree (some say second), you are qualified to call yourself a High Priest/ess and run your own coven and grant your own degree rituals.

Additionally, full initiatory rituals are restricted to the more traditional sects of Wicca. Many traditions do not perform degrees, and therefore you can't say that one with degrees is better than one without.

HOWEVER, here's what you CANNOT do. You cannot proclaim yourself a Gardnerian High Priestess and start your own coven if you have not received initiations. You cannot perform a Gardnerian initiation on yourself. You cannot perform a Gardnerian initiation on others if you have not received those initiations yourself. Pretty obvious stuff really, but you'd be surprised at how often these rules are broken.

The problem with this "Wiccan FAQ" is that the author is one of those who believes that British Traditional Wicca is "real" Wicca, and everything that came afterwards is "fake" Wicca. I don't believe that myself. The non-BTW traditions are just different, that's all.

However, what the author refers to as "Neo-Wiccan" is what I like to call "Insta-Wiccan". By this, I mean those who want ONE book or ONE website to tell them absolutely everything about being a Wiccan, after which they'll consider their education complete. There are plenty of would-be Wiccans out there who don't realize that this religion is a life-long learning process. Your education is never complete - you can never read too many books, participate in too many open circles, or talk to too many mentors. Like most good religions, Wicca is a journey of self-discovery, a journey that never ends.

very well said.

[~Emily~]

Gardener didn't create Wicca. He just exposed his traditions, which were takes of the traditions of a coven that he was initiated into. IMO, he created very little. Terynfydd.
There an interesting essay about the origins of Wicca, called "The Great Wicca Hoax" (http://www.whitedragon.org.uk/articles/hoax.htm). After you read it, tell me what you think. :)

[Ben Gruagach]

Ben T. described it all pretty well.

This discussion has been going on at least as far back as Gerald Gardner's time. When Alex Sanders started promoting his tradition (Alexandrian) and initiating people, many Gardnerians said he wasn't a "real witch." (Back then they tended to just use the word witch rather than Wiccan... that really took off in the 1960s and later, really not until the 1980s I think that it really became much more of the standard.)

Robert Cochrane claimed that Gardnerians were the "fake witches" and his own way of doing things was the "real" witchcraft.

Part of the problem is that Gardner did present his particular way of doing things as something he said he was just passing on, not as something he'd invented or compiled himself into a system. This leaves the door open for others to come forward to claim they're witches/Wiccans too and Gardner couldn't really say they're not.

It's interesting that while Gardnerians and Alexandrians used to be at each other's throats on this very issue, now it's usually seen to be Gardnerians and Alexandrians (and sometimes a few others closely related to them) as ganged up against everyone else they see as newcomers.

In the lore about witchcraft there has always been mention of solitary practitioners. Some of the influential Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wiccans who many consider to be authories (Doreen Valiente, Janet & Stewart Farrar for instance) even went so far as to include discussion of self-initiation rituals, with examples of how to do it, in their books. If these highly respected traditional credentialed Wiccans thought it was possible for there to be Wiccans practicing without formal initiations into established covens then it's no wonder that others might actually go ahead and declare themselves Wiccan without benefit of a Gardnerian or Alexandrian initiation.

As Ben T. mentioned, though, there is a difference between being able to call one's self a Wiccan and saying you are part of a specific established group. For instance, to be a Gardnerian Wiccan you must be initiated by an approved Gardnerian initiator. It's like with university degrees -- if you want to say you have a Law degree from Harvard, there's only one (legal) place you can get that. But you can certainly get degrees from other schools. Just be careful about assuming they are all going to be considered equal when they're not.

It seems to me that a lot of people are hung up on trying to establish some authority for themselves by trying to take on titles that they might or might not really deserve. Some Wiccans in formal covens and traditions try to insist that what they are doing is "traditional Wicca" or "traditional witchcraft" and imply that other established Wiccan or witchcraft sects are somehow less valid. If being "traditional" is about being based on old occult lore, practicing magick and herbalism, then it has little to do with being formally accepted into a specific group or sect. If "traditional" is about belonging to an established formal group, then it also includes those groups that are more modern in their emphasis, or who worship a more eclectic (or heavens forbid more modern) mythology system. A lot of the arguments I've seen seem to try and slip back and forth between those two meanings as a way to set themselves up as better than others when really those others aren't different enough to really be excluded.

When it comes down to it, we have no central authority to decide once and for all what is a Wiccan, and who can use that title. We don't have a central scripture or Witch Pope to decide for us. Individual autonomy of sects, covens, and even individual practitioners is too much a part of Wicca for setting up a central authority to go over well. We can't even get total agreement on authority to be established in two of the oldest traditions, Gardnerian and Alexandrian Wicca, so it's no surprise we can't get everyone else into the agreement too. And I personally think that independence is one of Wicca's greatest strengths although a lot of Wiccans do feel it is a problem.

[Bec_W]

Gardener didn't create Wicca. He just exposed his traditions, which were takes of the traditions of a coven that he was initiated into. IMO, he created very little. But one could argue that he "created" his personal traditions. However, I do not believe this is the case.

Terynfydd.

Oh, right. Then who did create wicca if not Gardener?

[PAGANFILES]

Oh, right. Then who did create wicca if not Gardener?

IMHO--Actually, that is something like asking who created rugby and soccer. Bits and pieces came from all over and then a few took up a collection of the bits and pieces, another few codified them, and then some built a hierarchal structure.

Terry

[Ben Trismegistus]

IMHO--Actually, that is something like asking who created rugby and soccer. Bits and pieces came from all over and then a few took up a collection of the bits and pieces, another few codified them, and then some built a hierarchal structure.
Well, no, not really. Bits and pieces came from all over, yes, but it was Gardner who put it all together, wrote it all down, and built the hierarchical structure around it.

[PAGANFILES]

Well, no, not really. Bits and pieces came from all over, yes, but it was Gardner who put it all together, wrote it all down, and built the hierarchical structure around it.

Ben,

I think that would be rather an article of faith rather than verifiable fact. . . . Especially if you delve into the mound of writings surrounding Crowley and Gardner, et al.

Terry

[Ben Trismegistus]

I think that would be rather an article of faith rather than verifiable fact. . . . Especially if you delve into the mound of writings surrounding Crowley and Gardner, et al.
Uh, no, not really. The origins of Wicca are pretty well documented. Gardner took what he'd learned from any existing witchcraft practitioners, threw in the Greek mythology he'd learned while living in Cyprus, the hierarchical structure of Freemasonry, some aspects of the Golden Dawn, and called the whole thing Wica [sic]. Yes, he stole some texts almost word-for-word from Crowley, but Crowley never had much interest in Gardner or Wicca. The two men met once, soon before Crowley's death, and talked mainly of the OTO. Besides, once Doreen Valiente became Gardner's High Priestess, she removed much of Crowley's stuff from the BOS and wrote her own stuff.

If you don't believe me, I recommend that you read Ronald Hutton's Triumph of the Moon.

[PAGANFILES]

Triumph of the Moon[/i].


Ben,

That reminds me of another organized religion that expects folks to take a book as "gospel," and those who support it with their writing as supporting "gospel" of the "gospel." <G>

Terry

[Ben Gruagach]

Ben,

That reminds me of another organized religion that expects folks to take a book as "gospel," and those who support it with their writing as supporting "gospel" of the "gospel." <G>

Terry

I don't think Ben T. (or anyone else) is suggesting that any book be considered to be gospel. He suggested Ronald Hutton's book "The Triumph of the Moon" (and I'd add his newer one, "Witches, Druids and King Arthur" to that recommendation as well) because Hutton is a respected scholar who has brought together an overwhelming amount of verified evidence to support the claim that Gardner really was the one who started Wicca.

Hutton isn't alone in providing this evidence in print, but he is one of the most thorough and the most distinguished scholars to have done this. I'd also recommend reading Isaac Bonewits' "Witchcraft: A Concise Guide" too as it puts witchcraft as a whole, including Wicca, into perspective.

The balance of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of Hutton's and Bonewits' theory. Other theories (such as the claim that Gardner really was just passing on an intact tradition that he learned from someone else) needs to come up with its own compelling evidence if it's to be taken seriously.

[Ben Trismegistus]

That reminds me of another organized religion that expects folks to take a book as "gospel," and those who support it with their writing as supporting "gospel" of the "gospel." <G>
Besides what the intelligent Ben G had to say, there's a great difference between referencing an unsubstantiated 2000-year-old text and referencing a scholarly book from the 1990s, which refers to things that happened only 60 years ago. Written, I should add, by someone who does not even espouse the religion which the book is about.

History is not as fuzzy as it used to be.

[PAGANFILES]

I surely did step on toes. However, I'll take it as a fan of Shakespeare should.

Terry