Category Archives: Witchcraft

Religion, Witchcraft

All acts of love and pleasure…?

…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.

Paganism, Rants, Religion, Witchcraft

The Boy Scouts of America continue to slit their collective throats

Leave a comment

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.

Paganism, Witchcraft

Witches Weekly — Curses

3 Comments

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.

Books, Paganism, Religion, Witchcraft

Changing gears in the realm of reading

Leave a comment

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.

Books, Paganism, Religion, Witchcraft

Book Review continues with Chapter Two

1 Comment

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.”

Books, Paganism, Religion, Witchcraft

Wicca’s Charm: Chapter 1 Review, Part 2

1 Comment

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.

Books, Paganism, Religion, Witchcraft

Reviewing Wicca’s Charm: The Inevitable Salem Stop

1 Comment

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.