The Musings of a Confused Man

During this past Halloween season, I ran across an article by a woman named Catherine Edwards Sanders. In this article, she wrote a few comments on the growing interest in "Wicca" (she uses the term in a broader context than I do) and Paganism, as well as explaining how this growing interest represents a failure on the part of "the Church" as a whole. As part of her by-line on the article, she mentions that she also wrote a book on the same subject, whose title is Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality. Being the curious sort, I decided to order a copy. It came today, and so far I have torn through the preface and first chapter.

So far, I think the book deserves a fair amount of praise. This is not to say that I agree with everything the author says, mind you. Indeed, I think there are some points that need to be criticized. But so far, I think that the woman deserves a great deal of credit for setting her personal and religious views aside as much as possible and trying to understand the practices of those she observed and interviewed. As such, I feel it only appropriate to take a close look at her book and investigate both those areas where she made some excellent observations and those areas where her information, presentation of that information, or both are weak or faulty. It is my intention to do this in this blog -- both this entry an future ones -- as I read through the book.

The first thing I notice in chapter one is that it seems to me that the majority of her "sources" are from the "eclectic Wiccan" camp. (Even the one interviewee in this chapter that identifies as having become a Gardnerian says some thign I'd consider uncharcteristic of most Garderians, and I've met more than a few) I'm not sure if this is just the nature of this chapter -- after all, it focuses mostly on her encounter with and investigation of the "Pagan" side of Salem around Halloween -- or will continue through the book, but it does raise a bit of concern to me. After all, it raises a strong risk of painting all Pagans with the same broad brush. And even among the "Wiccans," the image she's portraying will not remain accurate for long.

Sanders actually opens chapter one by describing a "spell performed for spectators" that she witnessed. I must say that I admire Sanders for her even tone in the description of this rite. She neither tries to make it sound more sensationalistic than it is nor tries to deride it as a bunch of "nonsense." Instead, she gives a matter-of-fact, clearly descriptive account. This account immediately demonstrates her sincerity in wanting to represent the subject of her books fairly and kindly. Truth be told, I felt she gave a much kinder description of the rite than i would have been inclined to offer, myself. After all, I'm inclined to call into question the very idea of doing a spell "so that spectators can watch" (and charging them for the privelege, no less!), whereas Sanders is willing to let such a dubious activity pass without challenge.

She then gives a brief "history" of Wicca, repeating the commonly held -- if not entirely accurate in my opinion -- view that Gardner and his colleagues cobbled the religion out of a number of sources. While she doesn't come right out and say that she disbelieves the stories of Gardner's involvement with New Forest Coven (or NFC's very existence), she does seem to hint that she's of that mindset. Of course, given her sources, that's mostly understandable.

Sanders then offers four basic points that she considers to be common threads in the various practices of "Wicca." I think that these four points deserve special consideration and examination, as they again demonstrate the kinds of "Wiccans" she was observing and interviewing. As such I shall take each point as she writes them. The first point, she summarizes as follows:

All is one -- Wiccans hold the monistic and pantheistic beliefs that all living things are of equal value. Humans have no special place, nor are they made in God's image. They have, for example, the same value as flowers, trees, or grass. The cosmos is undifferentiated universal engergy, and everything is one vast, interconnected process.

Based on the Wicca I know, I find it difficult to comment on how accurately it reflects their practice. It is neither entirely accurate, nor entirely inaccurate. Furthermore, it is rather difficult to point out to specific points within this statement and say "this is true, but that isn't." While it is true that the Wicca tend to believe that many people in our society tend to over-emphasize the value of human beings in comparison to the value of non-human life (or even those things that we don't generally view as alive), I would not say go so far as to say that they see everything as being "the same" or "undifferentiated." In fact, I'd argue that it's quite the opposite. They see the individual and unique beauty of both humans and all other parts of the world around us, and they appreciate each one for its own greatness. In this sense, there is this idea of thigns being "valued differently," which must be honored in it's own right. Contrast this with the idea of being "less valued" or "more valued," and you get a more clear idea.

Point two reads as follows:

You are divine -- Wiccans believe they possess divine power within themselves and that they are gods or goddesses.

To be honest, I wonder how much of this point comes from Sanders' communications with "public witches" like Laurie Cabot and those who follow them. Most of the Wicca I know -- as well as most other witches and Pagans -- hold no such belief. While it is true that the Wicca believe that each individual is a reflection and representative of the gods and that the gods can be seen within each individual, this is a far cry from actually believing one is a fully fledged god. It seems to me that Sanders has either met some rather unusual witches in her studies or she is misunderstanding what is actually believed by most.

The third point is as follows:

Personal power is unlimited -- Wiccans believe that their power is not limited by a deity, as in Christianity.

This is the first point I think the Wicca I know might actually agree with her on. But to be honest, I'm surprised most of the "Wiccans" she spoke with also believe this. In my experience many people still have this idea that magic is still "asking" or "getting" the gods to do something for them, much as Christians see prayers of petition.

The fourth and final point reads as follows:

Consciousness can and should be altered through the pracice of rite and ritual -- Wiccans believe in the supernatural realm and the practice of altered consciousness through rite, ritual, and spell-casting in which they tap into the power and energy of the unseens spirit world.

This is fairly accurate, though I might personally eschew the use of the word "supernatural." Personally, I'm inclined to view the "spirit world" as natural as the "physical world," just of a nature we can't quite understand in the same way at this time. Indeed, I think that this constant tendency to separate the "physical" and "spiritual" or "supernatural" into two neat packages that have nothing to do with one another to be an area of concern. And unfortunately, it's a tendency found in various forms of both Christianity and Paganism.

I think that Sanders next hits upon a goldmine, but then glosses over it too quickly. She mentions that "Wicca" seems to delight in having no orthodoxy (quoting what is probably one of the few actually useful things Aidan Kelly has ever said on the topic of Wicca in his entire life). She points out that rather than focusing on doctrine, direct experience seems to be important. This is something I personally do not believe that can be emphasized enough, as the proper performance of certain rites and the internalization of the resulting experiences is the heart and soul of Wicca. Unfortunately, this heart and soul is too often lacking in eclectic circles. In her own way, Sanders points this out as she goes on to say that "Wicca" is instead defined "in opposition to issues such as environmental degradation, the perceived patriarchy within Christianity, or monotheism in general." If this is truly how the "Wiccans" Sanders interviewed see Wicca, then I am inclined to suggest that they "missed the boat" in that regards. Unfortunately, Sanders seems to be equally unaware of that state of affairs.

Sanders next tackles the question of Satan. In this area, Sanders deserves more praise. She again states clearly and almost emphatically that "Wiccans" do not believe they worship Satan. Moreover, she presses the issue by stating that she considers it inappropriate for Christians to accuse them of being Satan worshippers. In this, she does draw the fine line that there is a difference between believing that Pagans are "unwittingly" worshipping Satan in disguise (a position she implies that she holds herself) and believing they knowingly and explicitly worship him. It is the latter she is decrying in this part, and she makes a strong case for her views.

One thing that I do note about this part of her discussion is that she brings up that "Wiccans" don't believe in Satan and the fact that they don't believe in "absolute evil" in the same paragraph, suggesting the two are somehow linked. I find this curious, as it again suggests a belief on her part that Satan is the absolute source of evil (for more thoughts on this topic, I refer the curious reader back to an earlier entry I posted that touched on that line of thinking.

This chapter review has grown long. I think I will leave my remaining thoughts for another entry on another day. In the meantime, I hope my readers will find this review informative.

In a previous post, I began reviewing chapter one of Catherine Sanders's book, Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunge Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality. In this entry, I hope to complete this review.

After discussing "Wiccans'" disbelief in Satan and the fact that they are not horrible devil worshippers, Sanders turns her attention to trying to explain the belief in magic and spellwork. This is no easy task for most Pagans and witches, let alone a Christian journalist, and I admire Sanders's care and effort in writing about this topic. She begins this discussion by offering Starhawk's definition of magic (personally, I prefer Crowley's definition), as well as an example Starhawk has used to clarify and further explain her definition and how magic works.

One of the things that disappoints me is that Sanders does not discuss any Pagan beliefs concerning the source or nature of that power (hopefully, she will cover it in a later chapter). I believe this to be a fairly serious oversight, as I believe that the understanding of the source of the witch's power -- that the witch generates that power with her own body -- is an essential key to grasping many profound truths within the Craft. Of course, not all Pagans and "Wiccans" agree with me on the importance of this understanding, and this may explain Sanders's ommission of that particular point.

Sanders then goes into some of the common themse that most "Wiccans" will agree on, such as the perception of the Goddess as the Mother Goddess and the God as her Horned Consort. I do get the impression that her sources all tend to believe that "all gods are one and all goddesses are one," and this shines through in her descriptions of the God and Goddess. She also mentions the eight Sabbats and thirteen esbats.

She also mentions the commonly accepted symbol of the pentagram. Unfortunately, she does propagate an incorrect belief that runs rampant in the Pagan community -- another sure sign that all of her sources come from a closely related subgroup of the greater Pagan community. This is the belief that "Wiccans" and Pagans eschew the inverted ("one point down") pentagram, indicating that it is a symbol of Satanists. While it is true that Satanists have often made use of the inverted pentagram, they do not have a monopoly on that form of the symbol. There are indeed magical and religious traditions outside of Satanism that make use of the inverted Paganism. Unfortunately, by propagating this particular falsehood, Sanders is unintentionally encouraging her Christian readers to jump to incorrect conclusions if they happen to run across a practitioner of one of those traditions who do make use of an inverted pentagram.

Sanders then goes into a discussion about the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law. This is of particular concern to me. Unfortunately, far too many people in the Pagan community think that these two items make up the sum total of Pagan ethics. This is completely untrue, as some Pagan groups don't subscribe to either the Rede or the Threefold Law. Even among those who do subscribe to them, the way they are interpreted can vary greatly and widely. And many groups have further gudelines and factors to consider in their ethics. (Personally, I've always felt that the line in the Charge of the Goddess that calls for reverence, humility, compassion, and similar values was far more helpful in making ethical decisions than either the Rede or the Law of Returns.)

As an aside, Sanders paraphrases the thoughts of a Salem witch named Marisa concerning Osama bin Laden during this discussion of ethics. I found Marisa's views on that particular topic dubious at best, and it concerns me that these views were presented as universal to all "Wiccans" -- or even Pagans in general. While I may disagree with how our government officials are currently handling the "war on terror" to some degree, I do not endorse a course of action of "sending the terrorist positive energy and letting them be eventually punished by the Threefold Law." I find such a suggestion downright preposterous, and I doubt I'm the only witch who does!

Sanders then describes some time she spent observing and talking with Laurie Cabot. I will not spend any time coveing that, but will merely point out that I'm not sure what Ms. Cabot practices, but it seems to bear little resemblance to the forms of witchcraft I or those I have come to know and personally respect happen to practice. And while I respect Ms. Cabot's right to practice as she wishes, I wish she didn't make such an effort in presuming to "represent" all of us.

Sanders closes the chapter with a brief description of a Samhain ritual on she observed on "Gallows Hill." This ritual seems like the standard "open rite" performed for a general public: A bit showy, but very little depth. However, it's vibrant colors and themes does provide a pleasant closing to Sanders's first chapter.

One thing I will note on this chapter is that Sanders refers to "Gallows Hill" as the place where the witches of the Salem witch trials were hanged. I realize that she is merely repeating what tourists are told every year. However, I do find the fact that she didn't look into the truth of this matter as a journalist a bit disappointing. Truth be told, there are no records that indicate where the historical Gallows Hill was. Danvers's (formerly known as Salem Village -- where the trials actually took place) best efforts to uncover this information has still born no fruit.

It's been a while since I started my book book review of Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality by Catherine Edwards Sanders. As such, I decided to take the time to read through and review chapter two of the book, which the author gave the title, "Tired of Sitting in Pews." In this chapter, Sanders attempts to look at the reasons that so many people are looking to find spirituality in Paganism rather than seeking it through Christianity. The four reasons that she compiles are as follows:

1. Concern for the earth
2. Empowerment for women
3. Frustration with consumer culture
4. The draw of the supernatural

What interests me here is that Sanders does not try to dismiss these reasons. In fact, she shows a certain amount of sensitivity towards these sentiments. She even goes so far as to admit that many Christians and churches do seem to ignore these matters, and can even be antagonistic towards them.

Once acknowledging these differences, she speaks of the complaint of hypocricy within "the Church" that many Pagans complain about. Again, she does not shy away from this and does not deny that these things happen. However, she does rightfully point out that not all Christians play the part of the hypocrite. She also rightfully points out that there are some less-than-perfect people within Paganism.

As she discusses the tensions between Christians and Pagans alike, as well as the preconceived notions each side has about the other, Sanders makes what is both one of the simplest and one of the most important observations about the whole affair:

Sadly, many Christians don't take the time to get to know people like Ginny [one of the witches the author interviewed for this chapter]; instead, they judge her from afar. And, like Ginny, many Pagans judge Christians from afar. This only alienates neo-Pagans from Christians. It would be better if Christians defied the stereotypes by getting to know neo-Pagans, as the apostle Paul did.

I would add to Sanders's thoughts that it would also be helpful if more Pagans took the time to temporarily "forget" the stereotypes when meeting a Christian for the first time and got to know that individual as a real person. Until we're willing to stop filtering every experience through the stereotypes and our past experiences, no sincere attempt by Christians to get to know us better is likely to be all that successful.

One of the specific incidents that Sanders mentions where Christians have generated some "bad blood" involves an incident that happened three and a half years ago. (Incidentally, this is another area where Sanders demonstrates a need to be a bit more exacting in her research. The incident that she is describing did not occur at Midsummer, but during a ritual honoring the Spring equinox.) A small group of overly-zealous Christians attempted to interrupt a rite being performed outside a Craft store in Lancaster California and generally harassed those in attendance. This is one of those cases where Sanders certainly shows her willingness to look critically at some of the things adherents of her own faith have done.

Overall, I felt this chapter was a bit short and more than a little superficial. The author certainy did not cover the widh and breadth of reasons why people might leave Christianity, or what theological issues individual Pagans might have with Christianity. For example, she did not consider the fact that many Pagans question the need for "salvation," or the fact that many find Christianity's all too common focus on the afterlife to be rather life-negating in nature. It's not clear to me whether Sanders just picked the "top four" reasons she ran across and chose to focus on them, or whether she really believes those four reasons actually "cover all the bases."

I suppose as the month of January is almost half over, it would prudent of me to post a first blog entry for January 2006. I know it's been over a month since I posted anything, for which I apologize. December was a difficult month for me on a personal level. Part of that was due to craziness at work. Another part was due to the fact that it was my first Christmas alone after ending a long term relationship with a man I truly loved.

Another part was that my main focus in the past few entries, a series of entries reviewing Catherine Sanders' book titled Wicca's Charm: Understanding the Spiritual Hunger Behind the Rise of Modern Witchcraft and Pagan Spirituality, has hit a bit of a roadblock. I won't get into too many details at this point, as I would rather cover them in future entries in that series (assuming I ever "pick up the trail" again). However, suffice it to say that I'm struggling with Sanders's incomplete research and tendency to focus almost entirely on the most superficial aspects of the Pagan movement. (Also, her chapter covering the "history of Wicca" is full of the same misconceptions, straw men, and other flaws as most treatments of the subject, and that's something I'm getting tired of even trying to address.) So I've decided to put that process on hold.

However, I recently obtained another book which I'd like to cover in my blog. This one is by Robin Wood, a artist that is fairly well known in the Sci-Fi communities and probably most famous in the Pagan and Occult community for her tarot deck. (It's certainly one of my favorite decks.) However, the book I've just finished reading is her less known introduction to "Wiccan" ethics, When, Why ... If. It's a relatively small book, being about 175 pages long without the appendix, glossary, and recommended reading list, so it makes a relatively quick read. Of course, you could spend a good bit of time thinking about what she has written, and Ms. Wood includes a number of "exercises" at the end of each chapter to encourage exactly that.

I will start out to say that this is by no means an exhaustive and complete discussion of ethics, Wiccan or otherwise. But then, that's not what the author set out to do. She makes it quite clear in the introduction that her intent was to write a book to start the Seeker out on thinking about what it means to live an ethical life, and I think she more or less achieves that goal. I particularly like the fact that the first topic she covers in the book is the topic of honesty. Ms. Wood posits that it's only when we learn to be honest with ourselves that we can truly begin to live ethically. If we continue to make excuses for our behavior, rationalize a poor decision, or even beat ourselves up for a poor decision rather than doing what we can to rectify things and learn from our mistakes, then we will continue to be lost.

The rest of the chapters cover such topics as love, helping others, harming others (or more accurately, avoiding harming others), sex, and the difference between wanting and willing. Each of these topics are covered quite well (though I still get the impression that like many "eclectic Wiccans," Ms. Wood falls prey to forgetting that the Wiccan Rede has six other words besides "harm none" and that those words and their arrangement bear consideration). There was very little I could disagree with.

My issue with the book falls more to the fact of what was missing. Personally, I think that any book on Wiccan ethics should include solid discussion on beauty, strength, power, compassion, honor, humility, mirth, and reverance. After all, these are the very values that the Goddess of Wicca herself calls for after telling her adherents that all acts of love and pleasure are her rituals. The author covers a good number of these virtues implicitly in her book, but it seems to me that a more explicit and substantial exploration would be in order. One can only hope that Ms. Wood or another author will consider doing so in a follow-up book.

I decided I really needed to post a blog entry tonight. I've been way too quiet. I also decided to check out The Witches Weekly, and discovered some interesting question. I'm not answering all of them, but I figured I'd put out a few thoughts on some of them.

Is it possible to curse someone?

Absolutely. In fact, I feel quite strongly about this. The belief that magic can be used for harmful purposes is something I consider essential to witchcraft. As the saying goes, "if you cannot harm, you cannot heal." A belief that magic will only be beneficial is antithetical to the the dual pillars of self-empowerment and personal responsibility that support most of magical philosophy and witchcraft in particular.

How often do you think it happens?

I'm sure I can't even begin to quantify this in any meaningful way. I think it happens more often than the "white light brigade" would have the world believe. But at the same time, I think that working effective magic is hard work, more hard work than most people (including myself some days) have the discipline to follow through with. Truth be told, people expect it to be easy: a matter of saying a pithy phrase, using the right color candle, and/or the right herbs. As such, I also think it's less common (at least in our society, we won't talk about other societies where magical practices might get more disciplined attentn) than the average "scary evil witch" would like everyone to think, too.

What would make you believe that someone was working magic against you, and how would you handle the situation?

In order for me to suspect such a thing, I'd have to experience a concerted string of misfortunes that either have no "rational" explanation or are just too amazing to be considered coincidental. Even then, I'd have to do some thinking, some divination, and possibly even ask for the insight and advice of a trusted other party. Personally, I just have a hard time imagining there are people out there that'd hate me enough to go through the effort required to do that sort of thing.

As for how I'd handle the situation if I found out someone was working magic against me, it really depends on the situation and the numerous factors involved.

Imagine being a young boy, sitting with your fellow Boy Scouts at Scout camp, listening to one of your leaders talk about how diverse your troop has become in terms of religious background. He's praising this religious diversity as a good thing. So when asked, you reveal your own religious background, only to be told two days later that you're "too different" and the leadership would like you to leave the troop. How long do you suppose it'll be before you ever trust an adult that tells you they value "diversity" again?

Sadly, this scenarios actually happened to young Cody and Justin Buchheim in Anacoco. While most of the boys were showing their "diversity" by the fact that they attended a Baptist church, a Methodist church, or a Catholic church, Cody spoke up and indicated that he and his brother did not attend a Christian church at all, but were Wiccan. Unfortunately, the sponsors of their troop felt that being Wiccan was "too far outside the box" to make good Boy Scout material.

Now, I first have to wonder, if "diversity" means "everyone just goes to a different church, but are still essentially Christian," can it really be called diversity? Truth be told, the actual doctrinal differences between many Christian denominations are so subtle and complex, that many of the members of those denominations would have trouble clearly explaining those differences.

So when two boys hear these proclamations of diversity being good without being able to realize just how superficial this "diversity" being praised really is, they find themselves in a trap. A trap that they were practically pulled into. After all, Cody only volunteered information about his religious background when the Scout leader explicitly asked him what church he attended. It seems to me that Scout leaders need to be more prepared for the answers they get when asking a question. They also need to be prepared not to punish boys for the answers they give.

Then you have the leader who told the boys' father that the boys would not have been asked to leave if Cody had just lied when answering the question. Now, bear in mind that the first word in the Boy Scout Law (the bit about doing one's duty to one's country and God is actually part of the Boy Scout Oath, not the Law) after "A scout is..." happens to be "trustworthy." Furthermore the first statement on the BSA website when explaining what it means to be trustworthy reads, "a Scout tells the truth." So you have a Scout leader who basically says that the boys should have avoided getting kicked out by breaking the law they promised to obey when they took the Scout Oath (second line of the oath). What exactly is the BSA teaching their boys these days, anyway?

I think what I found really telling was the region's executive regional director's comments on the situation. He laid it all at the feet of the local troop and their sponsor, claiming that it's the local troop's sponsor's call on who they accept as members. Does that mean that I can sponsor a Boy Scout troop (oh wait, that whole homosexuality thing would get in the way) and exclude all Christian boys from the troop? I'm willing to bet good money that the regional and national directors would be real quick to step in.

Fortunately, the sponsor's own district church committe -- within the United Methodist Church -- took the bull by the horns, and told the local church/sponsor "you can't do that."

In the end, the boys were invited to come back, only to leave the troop of their own volition (and I can't say as I blame them). Their mother is currently filing to start a local chapter of Spiral Scouts.

The BSA needs to take notice. This constant practice of narrowly defining what kind of boy makes a "proper Scout" is only hurting them. They lost support over the homosexuality debacle, and they'll most likely continue to lose support as they allow "local sponsors" to define what religious practices are acceptable for Scouts. And it's making more people turn to other options, like the Spiral Scouts.

...all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals.

Most people who have any experience with Paganism are familiar with this phrase. Most of us have heard this phrase invoked when justifying any sexual orientation or practice -- including some practices that make most of us shudder. In fact, some people consider this one of the most troublesome phrases ever encountered in the Wiccan and general Pagan community because of some of the activities and behaviors it has been used to justify.

And while I certainly agree that people who have used this statement to justify some rather reprehensible behaviors, I do not agree that it is right to blame it on the above phrase. Instead, I argue that the fault should be placed where it has belonged all along: with those who have misused such a declaration without truly understanding it.

To truly understand it, we must look at this statement in context. "All acts of love and pleasure are my rituals" is not a complete quote in and of itself. In fact, it's not even the full sentence that clause appears in, at least not in the source I'm using. (1) This is a clause in a single sentence taken from "The Charge of the Goddess," a piece of Wiccan lore generally attributed to Doreen Valiente. The full paragraph (again, according to the way my source divides the Charge into paragraphs, others may vary) reads as follows:

Let My Worship be within the heart that rejoiceth, for behold: all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals. And therefore let there be beauty and strength, power and compassion, honor and humility, mirth and reverence within you.

Notice that the sentence immediately following the well-known phrase begins, "And therefore let there be...." This phrase makes it clear that this following sentence is a continuation of the same train of thought rather than the beginning of a new subject. In essence, it indicates that the virtues listed in this new sentence are directly related to "all acts of love and pleasure." In effect, the charge is listing characteristics that are essential to "acts of love and pleasure."

This is the major flaw in many arguments where the "all acts of love and pleasure" clause is used to justify dubious behavior. Those who propose that argument are attempting to define "acts of love and pleasure" by their own superficial, self-serving, and ego-centric definitions. The problem is that the rest of the charge does not permit this, because it clearly says that in order to be an "act of love and pleasure," a given act or behavior must possess and uphold these virtues. Indeed, any act that does not demonstrate these virtues cannot by definition be an "act of love and pleasure." So let us take a look at each of these virtues and their implications.

The first virtue called for is beauty. This means that each act -- and its results or consequences -- must be something that will be found to be pleasing to behold. During and after the act, all people involved with or affected by it must be able to look and take pleasure in it and see the beauty in it. Ugliness -- be it physical, emotional, or spiritual -- that comes from such an act immediately disqualifies it.

The next virtue is strength. All acts must come from and support a place of strength. The person who draws on "acts of love and pleasure" as a way to cover or make up for their own weakness -- or worse, to engender weakness in another -- has turned away from love and twisted pleasure into something it was not meant to be. In this sense, strength is antithetical to neediness. A true act of love and pleasure is not done out of neediness, but from a position of mutually empowered desire.

Power, the next virtue, is related to strength. In this sense, I would argue that the "power" here is one of choice. A true "act of love and pleasure" involves choice, and a person performs such acts by their free will rather than through coercion or inner compulsion. In this sense, acts involving more than one person are about equality and mutual choice. The person who emotionally manipulates another into such an act is no better than the person who does the same with physical force.

The next virtue, compassion, is about mitigating one's own power when dealing with another. This is about taking the other persons needs, desires, rights, and general well-being into account. Acts where one is only concerned about one's own strength, choice, appreciation of beauty, and any other virtue still falls short of being truly about "love and pleasure."

The next virtue, honor, is equally important. My own experience has taught me that if we do not keep our integrity intact, then we become nothing. Because of this, it's all too clear to me that without integrity in our relationships, they too become nothing. The person who cannot maintain their character cannot know love, so how can they commit an act of love?

Humility, like compassion, is about the other person. Whereas compassion reminds us to think of the other person, humility goes one step further and reminds us that it's also about the act itself. A true act of love and pleasure (2) is about a bond between two souls. Unless we are willing to take our proper place rather than allowing our egos to bloat, there can be no love shared in any real way.

It's strange to think of mirth as being an important aspect of love and pleasure, it's nonetheless important. Mirth is about being able to lighten our hearts and enjoy the love we share. Perhaps if we as a society learned the value of mirth in all aspects of our relationships, there wouldn't be nearly as many tales about "performance anxiety" and similarly distressing problems.

The final virtue, reverence, again brings us outside of ourselves. It's about respecting oneself, the other person, and the act itself. It's an understanding that if we are going to truly declare this an "act of love and pleasure," it is indeed sacred. Reverence teaches us that sacred things should be treated as something special.

Now that we've looked at the virtues listed -- those which must absolutely exist, lest an act fail to truly be about love and pleasure -- it's time to look at the beginning of the first sentence. Before declaring all acts of love and pleasure to be rituals of the Goddess, the Charge first calls for the Goddess's praise to be "in the heart that rejoiceth." This is equally significant. Immediately following this clause and as a lead-in to the well-known clause comes the connecting phrase, "for behold." This tells us that a rejoicing heart is also significant to all acts of love and pleasure. Indeed, for hearts that rejoice are the end result and direct effect of a true "act of love and pleasure." As such, one who truly wishes to evaluate whether their proposed "act of love and pleasure" should not only consider how well it reflects, possesses, and upholds the virtues we've discussed, but should also consider the resultant state of the hearts of those involved.

While some may find the suggestion that "all acts of love and pleasure" discomforting due to the behavior of some unethical people, I still find it a truly liberating and profound statement. However, it is important to understand what actually qualifies as an "act of love and pleasure" to truly appreciate the concept. Otherwise, one risks profaning the profound through ignorance.

Notes:

(1) I've copied all quotes from The Charge of the Goddess from an online copy hosted on the Starkindler Website.

(2) It's obvious I'm referring to sexual activity between two people. I've tried to be vague about it in most places, as I firmly believe that there are other "acts of love and pleasure" rather than just sex. I also believe that this phrase is also talking about our platonic and familial relationships and how we handle them, too. Most of what I am saying can be applied to such situations equally well. However, most people who abuse the "all acts of love and pleasure" clause are doing so to justify sexual activity. As such, I felt it equally important to cover sexual relationships directly to some degree.

Saturday, I spent the day at the Rochester Pagan Pride Festival. I had an absolutely wonderful time, and look forward to going again in the future.

Most of the day, I spent hanging out with Wendy and her friends. She was kind enough to let me put out a few fliers for the POC on her table. Quite a few people ended up taking them. With any luck, that means we'll see some new faces real soon.

I didn't attend many workshops, as I was having too much fun talking with friends and what-not. The one that I did manage to attend was the Crystal Singing Bowl meditation, led by the good folks from Singing Bowl Expressions. I've been to one of the monthly meditations that Dawn and Jeff hold at Psychic's Thyme before. While I certainly enjoyed my experience there, it paled in comparison to the demonstration at Pride this year. This workshop involved ten different bowls, each vibrating at their own frequency. While I was not one of the many people who immediately found themselves out of their body, I could certainly feel my own energy channels responding to the experience. I also remember opening my eyes a couple of times and realizing I couldn't focus my vision. It was an incredibly rewarding experience.

I also got a book on Pagan ethics that Patricia Telesco recently wrote under another pen name. As Ms. Telesco was one of the invited speakers at the festival (and I bought the book directly from her), I had the chance to discuss it with her. I told her about my desire to do some research and planning over the next year and put together a local workshop on Pagan ethics. She was quite happy about the idea and encouraged me. I also shared with her about my blog entry concerning the line in the Charge of the Goddess that declares "all acts of love and pleasure" to be rites of the Goddess. She paid me a rather high compliment in regards to how I approached that line and the sentences surrounding it. It was rather encouraging.

I think the person who impressed me most at the festival, however, was someone I never actually got the opportunity to speak to. That's the young man, Adam, who stood about ten to fifteen feet from the entrance to the festival, handing out Christian tracts to anyone who would take them. According to one of the organizers I spoke with later, Adam is a regular "attendee" of Rochester Pagan Pride. And I think he deserves a great deal of credit for the level of respect he showed. Despite Adam's obvious disagreement with the religious views of most of the festival goers and his desire to "save" us, he was able to offer his message in a rather unobtrusive way. He was alwas polite when people refused his tracts (strangely, he never actually offered me one) and never attempted to start an argument. I can totally respect the way he chose to demonstrate his convictions.

In a mostly unrelated topic, I'd just like to say that my friend, Becky, also thinks that the guy who waited on me at the sub shop we bought lunch at was interested in me. I'm not sure I agree with her, but it was kind of nice to entertain the notion. I just wish that if he really were interested in me, he'd have said something.

I'm not sure how many people read this blog any more. I know I've been silent for almost a month now. To be honest, I've logged in to write something several times since my last entry, but have never been able to get past the blank textbox.

This is one of those cases where many aspects of my life have caused me to turn inward, to work on projects and go through things that I'm not ready to post about yet. There's just so much going on that still needs to be worked out in the stillness of my own mind before broadcast to the world, and as such, I leave what readers I may have wondering what's going on.

What I can say is that my spiritual life is getting rather interesting right now. There are certain things that I need to work on and certain changes in my life that I'm making in order to prepare for the "next big step." At some point, I hope to talk about some of that. But for now, I must leave it at this simple teaser.

I'm also working on a writing project, which I have several guides telling me will eventually coalesce into a publishable book. However, I'm in the very early stages of that process. Currently, I'm at the point where the project involves me spending regular times with a separate journal (as opposed to my "everyday" one) and writing about past experiences, people, and choices that I can remember, and my emotional reactions to them. It's been both a rewarding and trying process, as not all of the memories or the realizations related to them are entirely comfortable. They're not exactly painful, either. But they take a bit of processing at times.

One of the interesting things is that as I continue with this project, I find myself remembering little things that I had completely forgotten about, things that I haven't thought about in a decade or more. That in itself can be a bit shocking. Of course, on the flip side, it's also nice to suddenly discover that I have more memories of my life before high school than I might've thought. They're just there waiting to be found.

Of course, a side effect of this process is that I find myself growing nostalgiac. I find myself wondering what ever happened to old friends, old school chums, and even an old lover or two. I find myself wondering what kind of people they are today. After all, it's been at least a decade since I've seen some of them.

You can't go home again. But at least you can visit. Even if only in your mind.

Seeing as I'm still only working part time, I had today off. One of the things I did to pass some of my day off was to watch the copy of The Covenant that I had rented. It was an interesting movie, and I mostly enjoyed it. I'm certainly glad that I did not waste the money to see it in the theater, however. It would not have been worth the extra expenditure.

The basic premise of the movie was actually quite good, and the special effects were about what you'd expect in such a supernatural thriller. (Though to be honest, I'm not sure it deserves that designation.) There were certain plot elements that were rather noteworthy, such as the idea of one person being able to will their power to another with the caveat that doing so would mean death for the one giving up their power. Unfortunately, these concepts were underdeveloped in many cases. Also, the concept of a darkling was introduced, but never sufficiently explained. Indeed the appearances of the darkling in the movie served little purpose, other than providing a convenient way to let the main characters know someone was "using."

The other poorly emphasized plot element was at the end where Caleb's mother visits her aged and dying husband. As a result of that meeting, Caleb's father wills his power to the younger man, enabling him to defeat Chase. Such a sacrifice deserved much more attention than the brief blip in the final battle.

Of course, like any good thriller, they left the obligatory opening for a sequel. In the end, no sign of Chase was never found, leaving the characters and moviegoers alike to wonder whether the power-mad youth was truly gone or merely biding his time for another attempt at his goal. To be hoenst, I think that such a movie that shut all the doors on the possibility of a future sequel would be a refreshing change of pace.

When this movie originally came out, several friends in the Pagan community expressed their concern about it. They were concerned that this movie would create an insurge of youths with warped ideas of what real magic and Pagan spirituality was about looking to form "covenants" and gain the kinds of power wielded by the characters in this movie. And this concern is not unfounded. After all, I've fielded my own share of requests for spells to change one's hair color or eye color from girls who had recently watched The Craft.

However, I think that the life-threatening aspect of "the power" in this movie might mitigate the tendency for boys and young men looking for the fast path to power after watching this movie. After all, I don't know of many youths who are prepared to sacrifice their youth, let alone their lives, in the pursuit of power. So as long as said youths don't try to separate that aspect of the movie's premise from the rest, I'm hopeful that we won't see an upsurge of "Covenant wannabes" in the near future. Indeed, in some ways, I'm thankful that Hollywood imposed some "price" on these characters in exchange for their powers, as I'm tired of magic being presented as a "get everyhing for nothing" ventures.

Personally, I think the bigger concern is that too many people will take the cautionary message in this movie too much to heart. I can see this movie reinforcing popular images of magic and the occult arts involving some sort of pact in which a person gives up their lives, youth, soul, or other "thing of value" for power. Unfortunately, this notion is no more realistic than the "something for nothing" concept expressed by other movies.

Of course, the underlying problem behind both concerns is the simple mater that we no longer require our youths to develop the ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, espcially when that fiction is presented to them via a large screen and surround sound.

Back around Christmas, I read a blog entry by Mark in which he describes the difference between magic and miracle. While he was mainly investigating the topic while examining literature, particularly Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, it got me to thinking about the nature of magic as I understand it. This line of thought was further stimulated this past week while working on my Review of the movie, "The Covenant." As a result I've decided to start a small series of posts on various concepts I consider important to the practice of magic.

For those who find this and any future entries while searching for spells or practical advice on casting spells, I must inform you that you will be severely disappointed. This is not my intent, as I generally do not believe that a public blog (or most other forms of Internet communication, for that matter) is an appropriate medium for disseminating that kind of information. Instead, this and future posts will be theoretical in nature, covering concepts whose understanding will, in my opinion, at least, enhance a witch's ability to ply her magical craft.

The first important concept to understand is that creation is not a "done deal." While many religious traditions teach that God or some other Divine Source created the universe like a "master clockmaker" who assembled everything and wound everything up enough to last for the rest of its existence, a witch understands that the creative forces are still in progress. They see the universe not so much as a mechanical wind-up toy, but as a living thing that has a more organic life. Under such a paradigm, both creation and desctruction are ongoing activities. In Norse mythology, this is represented by Yggdrasil, the world tree which holds up the nine realms. This tree is constantly being nourished so that it grows. That growth is then controlled by the harts which feast on its leaves and the wyrms that gnaw at its roots.

Norse mythology further corroborates that the creation process was not a "one time deal," at least indirectly, when you consider that there is not a single creation myth in the lore, but a series of stories describing different aspects of creation. In one tale you have the uncovering of Ymir and Audhumla when the fires of Muspelheim and icy waters of Nifleheim combine, while in another tale, you have the creation of man and woman from trees by Odin and his brothers. (Indeed, one might go so far to ask who or what created the trees that were turned to human and when they were created.) This all suggests that the universe unfolded over a period of time.

More importantly, it suggests that there were a great number of players in the creation process. Creation was not done by a single Supreme Being all at once, but was a process where many forces and beings built upon one another's part of the process. This brings us to the next part of the creation concept: We are participants in the process of creation as well as part of the outcome.

To underscore this concept, I again draw upon Norse mythology. As I mentioned earlier, Yggdrasil is nourished daily. The task of providing this nourishment is left to three giant maidens known as the Norns. These Norns are the embodiment of the Norse concept of wyrd, which can be roughly described as a hybrid of the more familiar concepts of fate and karma. (This is naturally an oversimplification, but a more careful examination of wyrd deserves its own post, which I hope to offer at a later date.) Upon applying this understanding to the myth, the symbolism becomes clear: The universe itself is propagated and nourished by the actions of all who are a part of it. In effect, the universe and its constituant parts, through their actions, guide its own own development and the creative process that is unfolding.

Magical work involves understanding this basic principle and applying it by acting in ways to influence the continuing process of creation in specific ways. Or as Crowley put it, it's a matter of "effecting change in accordance with will."

An understanding of creation as an ongoing process addresses one of the issues inherent in Mark's characterization of magic. Under a paradigm in which creation is a completed process performed long ago by a single Creator, it's hard not to see any attempt to alter that creation as a "twisting" of said creation. Furthermore, it's inevitable that one sees that "twisting" as a purely negative and evil thing. The perfect clock cannot be enhanced, and therefore any changes are obviously bad.

An organic understanding of a universe that is still going through the creation process, however, allows for a universe that can be changed both for the better and for the worse. In such a system, especially a system which recognizes every individual as a co-creator anyway, influencing the process becomes natural and understandable. The question of whether said influence is negative or positive becomes a matter of further ethical consideration.

In a previous post, I wrote about how an understanding of Creation as an ongoing process is a powerful concept in magic. In this post, I wish to look at another powerful concept, the concept of the will.

Most people who work with magic are familiar with the definition of magic offered by Aleister Crowley:

Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will.

Despite the fact that I am in no sense a Thelemite (which is one of the reasons I don't add the K to the end of the word "magic"), I find this definition quite useful. Furthermore, it demonstrates that will is central to any magical act. Without will, there is no magic. So this begs the question: What is will?

The American Heritage Dictionary, Fourth Edition (as reported by Dictionary.com) includes the following definitions:

1. a. The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action: championed freedom of will against a doctrine of predetermination. b. The act of exercising the will. c. Diligent purposefulness; determination: an athlete with the will to win. d. Self-control; self-discipline: lacked the will to overcome the addiction.

It is clear from these definitions that will is that part of the psyche that initiates action. It is that which takes a desire that we have, and focuses our time and energy to accomplish or manifest that desire.

It is important to note that desire is not the same as will. In my experience, this is an increasingly common misconception in the magical community and our society in general. Far to often, we express our desires thinking that doing this alone (or even having those desires in the first place) is sufficient to have them met. I'm reminded of the joke about the devout Christian who goes to church daily, only to ask God to let him win the lottery. After many weeks of this daily routine, God finally decides to respond to this request in a very personal day. As the petitioner makes his request one day, he hears a rather annoyed voice from heaven proclaim, "You could at least buy the ticket!"

Truly involving one's will in the satisfaction of a desire requires both effort and action. Without this effort, this act of will, the desire never comes more than a vain wish. It is the act of making sure that the "rubber meets the road" that makes magic.

Since Crowley offered his definition of magic(k), some have tried to improve upon his definition. Most notably, people have tried to add such qualifiers to the end of the definition as "by means not understood by ordinary science." This is often done in an attempt to identify the "mystical" aspect of magic and to distinguish it from "mundane" effort. I am convinced that this is a mistake, as it creates an artificial boundary between "mundane" and "magical" effort.

Truth be told, to someone who walks a magical path long enough, every act of will becomes an act of magic. The boundary between the "mundane" and the "magical" dissolves completely, and an individuals conscience efforts blend together seemlessly. The witch who is looking for a new job is working just as magically when she writes her resume as when she is lighting a candle or praying to her gods for their blessing on her search. All of these acts and the power channeled into them work together to accomplish her goal and manifest the job that she needs.

Understanding all conscientious acts as magical acts also explains why so many magical attempts are shipwrecked by "mundane" activities. Consider for example a less experienced witch who does magic to get a new job, but doesn't not pay careful attention to the creation or modification of her resume. Or perhaps she submits her resume haphazzardly, not putting much effort into the seach process. Understanding that these choices are magical acts in themselves demonstrates that her will is not fully behind her stated outcome of finding a job. As such, her efforts and energies become unfocused, scattered, and less effective. Perhaps they become totally ineffective.

It's been quite some time since I've participated in Witches Weekly. When I checked the site on a whim and read the current questions, I felt they were well worth considering.

If you were to plan your own Wedding or Funeral ceremony, would you create two separate ceremonies for pagan and non-pagan folk, or would you just plan a ceremony around your beliefs. How would you feel if any non-pagan friends or family did not wish to attend such a ceremony?

This is a question (at least when discussing weddings) I used to ponder when I was dating Mike. In that situation, the question was further complicated by the fact that he was not Pagan, but nominally Christian. Because of that fact, I felt that a completely Pagan ceremony made absolutely no sense. So I had always envisioned a single ceremony that we both found acceptable. Because of our difference in faiths, I figured that it would probably be fairly generic, and would not bother any of our potential guests.

If I was marrying another Pagan, I'm not entirely sure what I would do. On the one hand, I'd be inclined to just do a Pagan themed ceremony and not bother with another one. After all, most of my friends would be okay with such a service, as they respect my beliefs and would be willing to respect incorporating my beliefs into my own wedding ceremony. And to be perfectly frank, those who could not handle that choice would also be unable to get over the fact that I was marrying another man. As such, they wouldn't show up, and I see little reason to worry about their sensibilities because of that.

But as I think about it, I think that I don't really want a "Pagan wedding" at all. I want a handfasting, and I want it in the truest sense of the word. I want a private, magical act which not only affirms our bonds with one another, but actually creates (moreso than they already exist) and strengthens them. I don't feel that kind of magical act is appropriate for the normal participant-spectator model that most weddings involve. After all, a huge guest list does not work well with the small numbers needed to keep everyone a direct participant.

Also, such a handfasting does not lend itself to meeting the needs of the civil marriage ceremony and contract (assuming I'm ever granted access to such civil rights, mind you). And even if it did, I'm not sure I'd want to combine the two. So perhaps I will have two "ceremonies," a civil ceremony where the papers are signed and most guests are invited, and then the magical act, which is kept between myself, my love, and those who we trust to work with us in the working of such magic. (Of course, that all assumes I have a lover open to these things, himself.)

As for my funeral, I'm not sure I care much about that one. While I see my wedding as something for my lover and myself, I see a funeral as being for the benefit of those loved ones I've left behind. To be perfectly honest, I'm inclined to let my closest loved ones plan the funeral service in any way that will help them to grieve properly. However, this permission will come with the caveat that if they invite a Christian minister to speak and he goes into an evangelistic spiel, I will haunt them for the rest of their lives.

Back in January, I launched a series of entries called "Concepts in Magic," starting with a discussion of creation. I followed this with the second entry, that one about will. As I sat at my computer, I decided that the most logical third entry should be about wyrd, as it's where the previous two concept meet and interract.

Wyrd is a term from Norse mythology. However, I believe that the concept of wyrd exists in most, if not all, magical systems and religious traditions. This can be seen in the fact that wyrd has many aspects in common with such concepts as karma or fate (though none of them are exactly the same). Given the fact that my own practices are heavily influenced by Norse thought, I will focus on wyrd in this entry. However, I strongly believe that much of what I say translates well to other traditions in some form or another.

At its most basic level of understanding, wyrd is the principle that states that the current moment in time is the cumulative result of all past events and choices. If a person takes a moment to ponder all of the circumstances and choices in their lives, they discover a trail which has led them to the point where they stand at this very moment. As they do this, they are pondering and coming to understand wyrd.

Often times, people come to understand wyrd as a personal thing. You will find both modern heathens and Icelandic authors that speak of an individual's wyrd much like one might talk about one's karma in the Eastern traditions. While there may be some benefit to this point of view, I have come to the realization that from a magical viewpoint, the idea of personal wyrd is merely an illusion. What we often like to see as "his wyrd," "her wyrd," "your wyrd," or "my wyrd" is merely a limited perspective of a tiny piece of a much greater tapestry, true wyrd. In reality, there is only wyrd, a single fabric of reality that connects and supports everyone and everything. And it is this larger picture of wyrd that is important to a magical mindset.

It is this interconnectedness of all people and things through a single, universal wyrd that makes magic possible. This is because each of us shapes this universal wyrd on some small scale, thereby affecting the greater whole. Indeed, it is our ability to shape wyrd in some way that makes us participants in the creative process. After all, it is wyrd that holds creation together.

In reality, every living being in the universe can and does shape wyrd, even those who don't understand or believe in it. However, the magician does so both consciously and willfully. A magician comes to understand the nature of wyrd and his contribution to it, thereby enabling himself to influence wyrd in the way he wishes.

Of course, a wise magician does this respectfully and carefully. Wyrd is governed by certain principles (often known as the primal rules or orlog), and so is the process of shaping it. Indeed, one of the great challenges of working effective magic is coming to understand the governing principles behind wyrd well enough to shape it effectively and responsibly. That is an ongoing learning experience which the responsible magician or witch will devote themselves to for the res of their lives -- or as long as they choose to work magic.

Today, Deborah Lipp offered a brief summary of her thoughts on the differences between magic (or more specifically, spells) and prayer on her blog. It was nice to see someone whose thoughts on the subject echo my own. I've always had a problem with the tendency for some to equate spells to prayer, simply because of the nature and source of power that Deborah describes. One of the things that drew me to the path I'm walking is the understanding that I am an active participant in my life and in the process of determining my eventual destiny. To me, the suggestion that spells are simply a way to ask the gods to give you what you want is contrary to that very principle. I work magic because it's a way I contribute to my life and the achievement of my goals.

Of course, as I think about the whole topic, I also realize that the suggestion that spellwork is the same as prayer bothers me because it is contrary to my own understanding of prayer and the very relationship I have with my gods. I'm not the kind of person to ask my gods to give me something, but rather the kind of person to ask them for wisdom and guidance on how to attain what I desire for myself. I would ask them to help me learn to make my own efforts as effective as possible. I would ask them to help me be aware enough to see the opportunities I'm working to create. Asking them to just give me whatever it is I want would be unfair, both to them and to myself. It's simply not what our relationship is about.

While checking out The Wild Hunt today, I ran across Jason's post where he talks about an attempt to get a fortune telling law overturned in Casper, Wyoming.

Let me first state that I wish Ms. Forest the best of luck. I am a strong believer that such laws should be removed. Having had readings from a handful of professional tarot readers, I believe that they offer an excellent service. And while I might understand the city's desire to prevent potential con artists from defrauding people through tarot readings and other psychic readings, I do not think that such a blanket prohibitiion is the way to go about it. (Truth be told, it's my experience that the psychic community does a fairly good job of policing itself.) I also think that such a blanket prohibition singles out Pagans and is unethical until governments also look to address the practice of prophecies and words of knowledge that goes on in many charismatic and Pentecostal churches, churches which often turn around and ask for donations. (I even attended one such church that brought in a "professional prophet" for one service and took a special offering that went to said prophet for her ministry.)

That being said, I do find myself bothered by one part of Ms. Forest's argument. I'm not at all comfortable with the following statement:

It keeps her from charging for tarot card readings, a key aspect of Wiccan religion, she said.

While I certainly think that tarot readings are a handy tool for Witches and Pagans alike, I am not at all comfortable the suggestion that it qualifies as a "key aspect" of our practice. And I certainly would not consider the kind of readings professional readers offer client for monetary compensation specifically essential. (After all, there is a difference between what is essential or key and even that which is highly beneficial.) To present these readings as so key suggests to me that Ms. Forest and I practice rather different religions. (Of course, this is not entirely surprising, as I don't consider myself Wiccan.)

Of course, it is entirely possible that Ms. Forest is making this claim simply for the sake of political expediency. And I can certainly see the appeal in such an approach. After all, a claim of religious freedom is probably the best argument against this law. But again, I'm not sure that claiming it as a key practice is entirely necessary to make that argument.

Of course, ultimately, I don't know whether Ms. Forest made her claim out of sincere belief or in the name of political expediency. I cannot and will not judge her motives. But in either case, the idea just leaves me somewhat uncomfortable, despite the fact that I agree with her goal to get this law removed.

I figure while I'm at it, I also might as well answer a few more of Mahud's excellent questions.

How do Pagan ‘gods’ have an active role in your life?

To answer this question, I think it's important to pair it with another question: What is the nature of the gods? After all, the nature of a divine being is going to seriously affect how you interract with such a being.

Different Pagans have different understanding of what the gods are. Some (and for the most part, I fall into this category) see them as individual beings. Others see them as facets of a single Supreme Divinity. Others see the gods as archetypes developed through the collective unconscious. And there are probably other understandings that people have adopted I'm not even aware of.

As I said, I tend to see the gods as unique individuals. I accept that they may ultimately be manifestations of a single Ultimate Source. But if that's the case, then I'm inclined to understand everything as being a manifestation of that same Ultimate Source. Gods, humans, animals, and everything else that exists come from there. But just like I'd treat different people as individuals despite being manifestations of the same Ultimate Source, I'm inclined to do the same with the gods. Some I've built deep relationships with. Some I know in passing. And others, well I wouldn't know them from Horus.

Of course, the other thing to understand is that I don't see my gods as gods in the popular sense (a sense that is mainly popular because it's based in the Judeo-Christian understanding of Divinity, which dominates our society). That's to say I don't see them as omnipotent, omniscient, or even omnipresent. To me, my gods are more like the spirits of many indegenous tribes.

I think that Gardner put it best when he talked about the gods of witchcraft as being "little gods" (as opposed to an all-powerful creator). They were great, but their greatness ultimately had limits, too. In fact, Gardner talked about one of those limits when he said that the gods of the witches "wanted men to be happy, but needed man's help to bring about their happiness." (That may not be an exact quote, but I don't have my copy of Witchcraft Today with me.)

And that leads me to the original question about the active role the gods have in my life. I see my relationship with my gods as being an active partnership. They both want things for me and want things from me. And these two things often interrelate. Years ago, I once wrote that the point of witchcraft (at least as I understand and practice it) was to manifest the nature and gifts of the gods into your life and the lives of those around you. Today, I think that's still the most concise answer I can give, even if it is a little vague.

So I talk to my gods in trance. I pray to them. I draw their essence down into my life. All to bring about this manifestation I'm talking about.

Do some pagans create their own gods?

Absolutely. It's never been something I've personally felt a need or desire to do, and I have to wonder how effective such a practice is. But to each their own, I suppose.

Other Questions and Answers
Nature and Paganism

I've been thinking about writing a spiritually-themed post for the past couple of weeks. However, until tonight, I haven't gotten around to it. In part, this is due to laziness on my part. I simply haven't taken the time to sit down and try to put my thoughts in order.

Of course, it's also in part because we have entered the dark half of the year, and the part of the Wheel where silence tends to reign. So my thoughts have turned inward, and I find myself wanting to spend most of my time mulling about spiritual matters -- especially how they apply to my life -- rather than blathering on about them.

And then there's the fact that my musings and experiences have taken me into realms that I'm simply not sure I want to talk about quite yet. In many ways, I'm still adjusting to recent events and new things in my life and I'm not ready to be broadcasting some of it. So in many ways, I expect this post will be short and somewhat vague.

It is clear that I have started a new leg of my spiritual journey, and one that will be guided and influenced quite heavily by my lady and patroness, Freyja. This is not surprising, as anyone who knows me well likely has a good sense of how dear and important she is to me. So it's probably not too surprising that she has chosen to strengthen and deepen our relationship.

Of course, this has not been a sudden thing. Indeed, the first conscious indication that new things were coming occurred during the Friday night seance at the naturist festival I went to back in August. During that seance, Freyja began to prepare me energetically. I spent the entire evening feeling like my head was buzzing. (She even made her presence known to Belinda in order to confirm for me what was going on.)

Since that time, things have continued to progress between her and I, and it's been an exhilarating if nerve-wracking experience. I'm not entirely sure where everything is going, though I'm becoming more comfortable with the overall experience.

I do know that it means that I'm going to end up taking a more visible and active role in the world around me. I have work to do, and I have work to do in order to get ready for it.

One of the inherent problems with agreeing to enter into a working relationship with a specific deity is that said deity actually expects you to work. And eventually, that work will include tasks that require you to step outside of your comfort zones and do things you're not sure you're ready for. This morning, I experienced one such instance in my own life.

A small group of friends and I have been talking about getting together more regularly to do ritual. This is the group (or at least the core part, though I hope we invite a few of the others for Yule) that gets together every year to celebrate Samhain together. The rest of the year, we get together more sporadically. As I said, that's something a few of us would like to change.

As I was driving in to work this morning, I got thinking about this fact, and the upcoming solstice. A couple of us had been talking about the fact that we really should do a Yule ritual. However, no one has sat down to actually make any plans. It was this last fact I was considering when Freyja decided to speak her mind.

"You know, you could plan the ritual."

I blinked and immediately thought to myself that I'm not sure where I'd begin. Suddenly, I had a handful of ideas running through my head. Obviously, she wasn't going to let me off that easy. So I thought about it for the rest of the drive to the office. Once I got here, I made a call and offered to plan the ritual. It turns out that this was a good thing, because the others had already agreed to do ritual for Yule and even set the date, but weren't sure what they were going to do. So it looks like I'll be taking the lead on the planning as long as they provide the space.

I'm also getting the inkling (another one of her ideas, I'm afraid) that I'm going to suggest that we trade off. I'll plan the solstices and equinoxes if the others will take care of the other four high days.

Egads, what have I gotten myself into? But then, I keep getting told that I need to quit hiding and take on a more active role. I guess this is a step in that direction.

Darn goddesses, anyway.