Thoughts on Voluntary Baptism for Children

In a Discord community, an acquaintance asked for thoughts on the idea of children and teens making a profession of faith and getting baptized. I gave some thoughts on the topic. I would like to now share them here and even expand on them.

My own thoughts are influenced by a number of factors. First is the factor of being brought up in an American Baptist church that was a staunch believer in the believer’s baptism. We did not do infant baptism. Baptism was a choice a person had to make for themselves when they were able to do so.

One of the big questions among Baptists tends to be the question of at what point CAN a child make that choice for themselves. When do they have the maturity and cognitive ability to make that choice for themselves? There’s no easy answer to that question. There’s also no one-size-fits-all to that question. Individual children develop and mature differently, each at their own pace. The moment we pick an age, we will have children that would have been ready for such a decision sooner and children for whom that age is still too young.

In the long run, I think belief in a child’s right to personal autonomy – and that is a belief I hold as fiercely as my belief in any adult’s right to personal autonomy – we may need to trust individual children to make this call for themselves. After all, getting baptized is typically not as dangerous as operating a chainsaw, imbibing alcohol, or driving a car. If a child gets baptized “too soon” or decides it was a mistake later for any reason, no harm, no foul. Or at least, I would hope so.

There are some obvious caveats here. Hopefully, they are getting baptized in a church and not some sort of cult. Hopefully, that church is healthy and espouses theology that is non-toxic.Hopefully, that church is not authoritarian and allows its members to establish friendships and other relationships outside of the church as well.

I acknowledge that this is a lot to hope for, and there are a lot of churches that do not match my desired attributes.But I think it is an error and an injustice to a child to try and resolve these potential pitfalls by deciding said child is “too young” to make that decision for themselves. In fact, I’d suggest that doing so would be to fall into the same kind of paternalistic, controlling behavior we’re concerned about the church engaging in.

Before I move on to my preferred way to mitigate these pitfalls, I want to offer another insight, this one influenced by my experience as a witch. And that’s an appreciation for the importance of praxis and religion as a communal practice and identity. I’ve come to see baptism as not only a profession of belief, but as an act of joining community and even a family. In fact, that may be the most important part to a child. Maybe they don’t believe in God and Jesus, but find meaning in singing the hymns or worship songs alongside others. And if the community/family is healthy, I think it is important to encourage a child who wants to join it and partake in it. After all, if they decide they no longer want to be a part of that community later on, they are (hopefully) free to leave it. No harm, no foul.

As an aside, I wonder how many of us balk at the idea of kids getting baptized or professing a belief is bad are acting out of old ideas about apostasy. We seem to have this reaction that “once we’re in, we’ll never get out” or something. Granted, that thinking also grows out of our own – often traumatic – experiences with Christian – particularly evangelical, as that’s the background of myself and a lot of the people I talk to – churches. We have an understandable and noble desire to protect others from experiencing the same or similar things.

Unfortunately, I don’t think we can always protect others. Even children. I also think there comes a time when our attempts to do so become controlling in their own way and rob others of their own – possibly positive – experiences.

So what do I think we should do? I think we should encourage children to think for themselves and to make their own choices – even if those choices sometimes make us nervous. Here are some concrete things that I think go into that:

  1. Instilling a sense of self-esteem and self-trust in the children around us.
  2. Teaching children that their needs and wants matter and are valid.
  3. Teaching children critical thinking skills and encouraging them to always think things over.
  4. Ensuring that children don’t end up in an echo chamber or solely reliant on the church (or any other source) for support and companionship.
  5. Teaching children that they are allowed to change their mind and that it’s okay (and probably even inevitable) if their beliefs change over time.

I believe that a child so equipped can and should be trusted to make their own choices about what they believe and whether they want to be a part of any given religious community.

“You just want to sin!”

I’ve lost count of the number of times I’ve heard or seen that statement now. Some have leveled this accusation directly at me personally. I’ve seen it in the dozens of posts where evangelical and other conservative Christians try to explain why people are deconstructing their faith, leaving their churches for more progressive ones, and/or leaving Christianity altogether. (I will not link to any of those articles, but be sure to check out the excellent response to one of them by Kurt Kroon over at Cascade Church of Portland.)

It’s a garbage accusation. No one goes through the process of deconstructing or changing their beliefs just because they want to “sin.” It’s an explanation that allows the accuser to summarily dismiss the truth of what many people who deconstruct go through. I’d argue that’s most likely because if the accuser took an honest look at what was really going on in such people’s lives, they’d have to grapple with some serious and difficult questions. And that might actually might make then start their own journey of deconstruction.

So as someone who has gone through the deconstruction process and came out realizing he prefers a cauldron over a eucharistic cup any day, allow me to unpack this whole idea of how some of us actually grapple with the topic of “sin” while we deconstruct.

As always, note that this is neither a comprehensive nor an exhaustive list. There are likely aspects of the topic of sin that I will not cover in this post. Hopefully, other people will pick up their pens (whether literal or figurative) and fill in the gaps that I leave so together, we draw a nuanced and beautiful picture of reality.

We question what qualifies as a sin.

I would estimate that 99% of the time that this accusation comes up, the accuser specifically has “sexual sin” in mind. And in 99% of those cases, I’ll note that the “sexual sin” in question is usually centered around engaging in sex with someone who is the “same sex” (in quotes to acknowledge the complex nuances that are added when you start thinking beyond the gender binary) as you. Oh, sometimes, they’ll throw in someone cheating on their spouse (which I personally would classify as breaking one’s word/agreement to one’s spouse rather than a “sexual sin”), but that often feels like an attempt to “prove” they’re not really just out to queer people. (Often, I feel they really are just out to get queer people.)

My response is very similar to Kroon’s response in his article, where he wrote the following:

Maybe what this concept is really exposing is that specific behaviors or identities are seen as sinful in these church communities and the process of becoming who God created them to be gets interpreted as just “loving sin”.

You see, here’s the deal. Some of us experience desires for people that evangelical churches tell us we shouldn’t. They often tell us that even having these desires is inherently sinful. Even in the cases that they don’t, they insist that acting on those desires is definitely sinful.

The thing is, for allosexual gay, lesbian, bisexual, and pansexual people — and even ace/aro people who are not sex-indifferent or sex-repulsed — sexual desires/and or the need to experience sex is a very real and basic human need. Expecting such people to perpetually deny themselves the fulfillment of that need for no good reason (and we’ll get to the reasons in a bit) is cruel. So these churches are demanding something of their followers that is cruel. That deserves to be questioned.

So do some people deconstruct because they want to find sexual fulfillment and intimacy? That was certainly one of my reasons — and the one that got the whole process kicked off. The thing is, I don’t see that as a bad thing. And I’m critical of any theology that does.

We question how sin is defined and determined.

One of the things I learned with my experiences in evangelical Christianity is that “sin” is very arbitrary. That is, the decision as to whether something is a sin and why it is a sin boils down to “God decides what is and isn’t sin.” I have said elsewhere and will repeat here that I think this is the worst basis for a moral framework that I can imagine. Morality must be something more than an arbitrary set of proclamations by God.

To once more go back to sexual desire and the desire for sexual gratification and intimacy, most evangelical Christians will insist that the Bible “clearly teaches” that such sexual activities are clearly sinful. But they do not grapple with whether their interpretation of the Bible is actually correct (there is good faith disagreement on how to interpret the Bible passages in question) nor whether the Bible would be correct even if it was proven that theirs was the correct interpretation. This is where my and others’ anti-authoritarian leanings come into play. “The Bible says so,” even if it were an unquestionably correct statement, does not settle the matter for me. We still must question whether the position is defensible from a moral standpoint. That is, we must look at the impact this doctrine has on the people it targets. That impact is toxic and harmful, which to me invalidates the doctrine. Doctrine that inflicts harm on people should be rejected, even if it’s “correct.” (See also: A deity who harms their own creation is a deity that should be opposed and undermined rather than worshiped and obeyed.)

I will note that some conservative Christians — such as Catholics — do not rely solely on “the Bible say so.” Instead they will invoke “natural law.” The problem is, their “natural law” arguments are based on outdated, obsolete understandings of science and/or outright junk science rather than based on what science has now revealed about the natural world. These arguments also deserve to be explored and criticized, and many queer and queer-friendly Catholics do exactly that.

We question original sin, total depravity, and sin as something that forever separates us from the Divine.

As far as I’m concerned, the whole concept of sin as taught in evangelical Christianity and other conservative forms of Christianity is toxic and irredeemable (pun intended) to the core. The idea that people need to be “rescued” from their sins is laughable and serves no other purpose than to force a perspective of self-loathing, helplessness, and unhealthy subservient reliance on God — and church leadership by proxy.

This is a reality that many people who deconstruct and/or deconvert go through, in my experience. We start questioning the whole idea that we are “sinners,” that sin is something that permanently separates us from God without God’s intervention. Instead, we start to formulate other ways to understand and derive our morality and our relationship with the Divine (assuming we have any further interest in the Divine). We start to explore other ways to address our moral shortcomings and the “messes” we create when we screw up. There are plenty of other models for atonement and accountability. Quite frankly, I consider quite a few of them far superior to the evangelical model, which tends to focus primarily if not exclusively on some perfect afterlife rather than seeking true justice, accountability, and restoration of human dignity in this life.

Concluding remarks.

I hope you, dear reader, are starting to see just how much there is to explore and deconstruct about the topic of “sin.” These are the kinds of questions that those of us who deconstruct and/or deconvert grapple with. And yet our accusers want to flatten that into a trite accusation that we “just want to sin.” I’m not buying it. I hope you don’t buy it either. In fact, I hope you start to see just how cruel and immoral the accusation actually is.

An Ex-Gay Survivor’s Musings on the “Pray Away” documentary

Hello, dear readers. If you are reading this post when I first scheduled it to appear, I just finished taking part in a Clubhouse room where we discussed the documentary “Pray Away,” which was directed and produced by Kristine Stolakis. I watched the documentary for the first time earlier this year and then re-watched it to take notes and prepare for the Clubhouse room.

As I was preparing for the Clubhouse room, I realized that there was no way that I could possibly talk about everything I wanted to. The room was scheduled to last for only one hour and other people needed a chance to talk. And this room was sponsored by a club where a lot of people want and need to talk. So I had to pick out a few important points to make and make space for the other participants.

So I decided to dust things off here at the ol’ blog and write this post. After all, I can take all the time I need to share all of my thoughts. That’s exactly what I’m going to do. (And if anyone from Clubhouse followed me over here to hear the rest of my thoughts, hi!)

Note from editing: I still didn’t get everything in. Some things had to go for the sake of structure. I’m pleased with the final outcome though.

Let me go into my own ex-gay background.

I never attended an Exodus conference. I never saw a therapist while trying to change my sexual orientation. Instead, I was the kind of ex-gay that read a book (this one, if you really want to know), confessed my “struggles” to my Christian friends and church family, and prayed like hell at home asking God to please make me attracted to women rather than other guys.

You see, there are all kinds of ex-gays. This is something that did not come across at all in the documentary. In fact, there was a time when I wasn’t sure I actually qualified as an ex-gay survivor. I expressed this to Peterson Toscano back when he and Christine Bakke-O’Neil (just Bakke back then) first founded the now inactive Beyond Ex-Gay (bXg). He assured me that I definitely qualified as an ex-gay survivor. In fact the bXg FAQ page has a few questions that cover the broad range of “ex-gay experiences.”

I think it’s also important to note that even those of us who did not attend formal ministries or events like Exodus International and its conferences were influenced by them. These ministries and events put out reading materials (a.k.a. propaganda) that influenced the general conservative Christian view of LGBTQIA+ people. So despite my self-driven attempts to pray away the gay, Exodus and the other organizations still had an impact on me.

Some things in the documentary were relatable.

I think the most powerful part of the documentary was the part that I related to most. That’s the part where John Paulk talked about feeling alone even though he was surrounded by his wife (at the time) and kids. Just before my fifteenth coming out anniversary, I offered the following reflection:

The thing is, dealing with one’s feelings is ultimately something one has to do alone. No one can feel those feelings for you. No one can take them away from you. No one can do anything other than support you through it all, and no one can give that support 24/7. I found that late at night, laying in my bed, I was left all alone to either face my desire for love and intimacy with another man alone or repress it alone. It was my burden to carry, and the more I fought it, the heavier that burden got.

— Jarred. “The Path Left Behind.” This blog.

Paulk went on to talk about the fact that it was during this time of loneliness that he finally realized he had to figure out who he really was or it was going to destroy him. I had a similar experience in my own coming out process, which I wrote about elsewhere.

Many parts of Julie Rodgers’s story were moving.

I had never heard of Julie before this documentary. That’s probably a huge reason why her story was one of the stories in the documentary that touched me most. When she read a section she had written about how her struggles reconciling her faith with her sexuality led her to injure herself, it moved me deeply. it (along with the part of John’s story that I discussed above) is one of the few parts of the documentary that I felt actually gave a glimpse into the kind of pain and suffering that the ex-gay movement has caused. (I’ll come back to this statement later.)

I wish the documentary would have talked more about the politicization of the ex-gay movement.

The documentary talked about how Exodus got involved in advocating for the passage of Proposition 8. Yvette Cantu Schneider talked about going to work for the Family Research Counsel. So the documentary covered that the ex-gay movement got in bed with the opponents of LGBTQIA+ rights. But the way it was presented made it feel like this was a “later development.” And perhaps as an explicit decision, it was. But the idea of political neutrality is often a fiction, and that certainly applies to the ex-gay movement. The ex-gay movement and its purveyors were useful tools to the opponents of LGBTQIA+ rights from the beginning. This is evidenced by the fact that Anita Bryant tried to form a coalition with Exodus back in the eighties. Exodus declined the invitation (for which I will give them some credit).

Yet, anyone familiar with the anti-LGBTQIA rhetoric will remember well the common defense: “Gay people don’t need rights. They can simply change.” Whether knowingly or not, the ex-gay leaders at the very least allowed themselves to be weaponized against the rest of us. Silence is complicity.

I wish the documentary had talked more about the ties between the ex-gay movement and the Pentecostal movement.

You get a glimpse of how Pentecostalism is heavily tied to the ex-gay movement in the scene from the documentary when everyone is laying hands on someone to pray for them. It was a scene from Jeremy McCall’s story. It didn’t come up in the documentary, but during an interview shortly before Exodus closed its doors, Alan Chambers talked about how his Pentecostalism influenced his claims to have changed his orientation. According to Alan, claiming to have already changed was supposed to be a statement of faith in the hopes that God would eventually make it a true statement. This is actually a common practice in Pentecostal practice and more specifically a common practice in the Prosperity Gospel movement, often referred to by the phrase “name it and claim it.” At the time of the interview, Alan expressed remorse that people mistook this practice for a factual claim representing the present reality.

It’s interesting to me that other former Exodus leaders talked about their claims to have changed differently in the documentary. Michael Bussee said he had been “pretending.” John Paulk outright said that he had been lying. I’m curious if that’s how both men would have interpreted their actions at the time they were still involved in Exodus or if it’s a description of their behavior after the fact. If the latter, I wonder if they, like Alan, approached their statements in a “say it as if it’s true so that it will become true” manner at the time they were still a part of Exodus.

I wish the documentary had talked about the shift in promised results by Exodus.

Everyone involved in the documentary was very honest in admitting that Exodus originally promised a change in sexual orientation. John Paulk said he joined with the expectation of getting married and becoming a father, thereby fulfilling his “proper role as a Christian man.” One of the earlier promotions for Exodus International — shown early in the documentary — practically equated turning straight with “being saved.” Paulk and Michael Bussee both admitted to presenting themselves as formerly gay men who had experienced a change in orientation in the past.

What the documentary did not cover was the eventual shift from “change is possible” to “the goal is holiness, not heterosexuality.” Exodus spokespeople started admitting that a change in sexual attraction may not actually be possible — at least not for everyone — and started promoting lifelong celibacy as an acceptable alternative instead. I suspect a lot of this had to do with the work of Justin Lee, who was critical of the ex-gay industry and formed the Gay Christian Network (which has since been renamed the Queer Christian Fellowship and continues on without Justin’s involvement), where the Side A/Side B terminology was first coined. (In that paradigm, I have seen people who promote actual change in sexual orientation referred to as “Side X” and deemed a completely different thing in its own right.)

I feel this change from promising “change” to offering “God-pleasing holiness” through celibacy is important. I feel it was one of the first signs that Exodus was failing.

I wish the documentary would have talked more about the tailoring of the ex-gay narratives.

In the documentary, Julie Rodgers talks about how Ricky Chalette pushed her to include a personal experience of sexual assault into her testimony — a terrible act on Chelette’s part. When she initially refused, she noted that he expressed disappointment because he felt the story would add so much power to her testimony.

One of the things I talked about when reviewing Randy Thomas’s own apology at the time Exodus closed its doors was how he noted that Exodus regularly encouraged ex-gay speakers to “tailor their testimony to fit a certain narrative” at the time he joined. Randy did not go into detail, but I have a bit of a hypothesis about what he’s talking about, and I feel Julie’s story about Ricky pushing her to include her assault in her testimony tends to back it up.

One of the things that I and others have long noted about many ex-gay testimonies is how they all talk about addictive and self-destructive behavior. They weren’t just gay. They were drinking way too much. They were abusing other drugs. They were engaging in risky sexual behaviors and/or “being promiscuous.” You can even see this in Jeremy McCall’s testimony in the documentary. It seems to me that this is probably a direct result of the “tailoring process.”

Now, I’m not saying anyone made up a drug addiction or drinking problem. (Though I’ll note that conservative Christians are notorious for overstating problems, to the point of sometimes painting having a beer or two with dinner as “a drinking problem.”) But I do think that there was a concerted effort to paint these problems as both inherent to the “gay lifestyle” (as opposed to a coping mechanism for dealing with the stigmatization and oppression of LGBTQIA+ people) and universal to all LGBTQIA+ people. And again, this is something that the opponents of LGBTQIA+ rights reveled in.

I wish the documentary had interviewed some ex-gay survivors who were never professionally ex-gay.

Hopefully up to this point, this analysis has been mostly positive and constructive. Overall, I think this is a great documentary, even if I think it could have been better. But now I have to talk about the one thing that drives me to absolute distraction.

In some ways, this documentary feels more like a part of the participants’ redemption story rather than an incisive analysis or exposé of the ex-gay movement. And that’s largely a result of who was interviewed. Every single person interviewed for this documentary is a former — or in one case, current — leader in the ex-gay movement. I call them “professional ex-gays.”

Now my feelings about each of them as individuals varies widely, based on when they left the ex-gay ministry, the circumstances surrounding their exodus (from Exodus! Ha!), and what they’ve done since then. Michael Bussee left Exodus back in 1979, has lived as an openly gay man with his partner ever since, and has done much to elevate the voices of former ex-gays. Compare this to Alan Chambers, who stuck it out until Exodus closed its doors, but has agreed to talk about his marriage to Leslie — a marriage he weaponized or at least allowed others to weaponize against the rest of us for years — as a difficult, but acceptable “alternative” for LGBTQIA+ Christians as recently as a couple years ago. (Fortunately, the expressions of outrage over the invitation caused QCF to quietly withdraw it, but it was done very quietly.)

I would have liked to see at least one person who had not been platformed by Exodus or some other organization — Jeremy McCall has his own ministry and accepts speaking engagements which I suspect he gets paid for, but have no proof — at any point. Someone who paid to attend conferences where they were told “pray harder” and were fed pseudoscience without a single bit of compensation. I mean, surely Michael Bussee could have arranged a few introductions between Kristina Stolakis and such people.

This meant that even when the documentary talked about the meeting Michael did set up between ex-gay survivors and Exodus leadership around the time of its closing, that narrative was filtered through those leaders. What we saw was not so much the stories of those survivors, but the reactions of the leaders to those stories. To me, that was a huge injustice on the part of this documentary. It may be an unforgivable injustice.

Let’s tl;dr this thing.

As I said earlier. I think it was a good documentary overall and worth watching. i especially think it’s worth watching if you’ve never had to struggle with your sexuality or never experienced what conversion therapy and ex-gay ministries are like. However, I would just suggest that you also seek out other sources of information and stories about the movement. Some such stories are still visible on the bXg site. I’d also recommend checking out sites like Ex-Gay Watch and the now inactive Box Turtle Bulletin which have tracked and reported on the activities of ex-gay ministries and the greater anti-LGBTQIA+ movement for years. Because if you only watch this documentary, you’re not getting the full story.

Getting the full story is important to me. The ex-gay industry did not die off when Exodus closed its doors like many people had hoped it would. If anything, It’s had a distressing resurgence in recent years. Many within the current industry are even back to promising “change” rather than offering lifelong celibacy as LGBTQIA+ people’s best hope. We need to remember — and remind people — that we have already been down this road and the costs that were extracted while traveling it. We must learn from history so we can stop repeating it.

New Video: Power in the Craft

Updated 5 May 2024: Replaced the shortcode with the URL for the YouTube video to properly embed it.

In this week’s video over on YouTube, I talk about the concept of power in the Craft.

As a former evangelical, I think it’s important to have an understanding of power that prohibits control and abuse of others. One of the things I did not mention in the video is the role of systemic power. Also, institutional power.

I think that systemic/institutional power should be avoided. All individuals should have access to power. This leads to equity and justice. I keep coming back to the idea of self-empowerment in witchcraft. That’s because I think it’s an important topic.

Institutional power and self-empowerment often come to odds with one another. For evidence, consider how institutions expect individuals to give up freedoms and make sacrifices for “the greater good.” But whose greater good? Most often, the institutions’ greater good.

As an aside, I’m amused by the fact that this topic came up during Pride Month. LGBTQIA people (though clearly not the only group) have been hit hard and abused by institutional power. Especially the institutions of various Christian churches. We desperately need a vision of power that breaks down that harm.

New Video: Magic as Self-Empowerment

I created and posted a new video yesterday about practicing magic for self-empowerment

[youtube https://youtu.be/8sxiYSOC8zQ]

Listening to some witches and other magical practitioners talk lately, I feel like we forget that we work magic to empower ourselves and improve our lives. At least, I hope that’s why we do it.

It’s too easy to get bogged down in the rules. “Only do this kind of spell when the moon is in this phase.” “You can’t do that spell right now! Mercury/Venus/Pluto/the moon is retrograde!” (I know the moon can’t go retrograde. It was a joke.) Or magic and our rituals start feeling like heavy obligations. (“Ugh! It’s the full moon! What am I going to do for magic?” “I don’t know what spell to do.”)

As I say in the video, I feel like these kinds of statements and questions often indicate that someone has forgotten that we do magic for self-empowerment. Our magic must be tailored to serve us rather than the other way around.

New Video: Living a Magical Life

After an extended break, I decided to get back into making some YouTube videos about witchcraft. In this latest video, I talk about what it means to lie a magical life.

[youtube https://youtu.be/N-3j-5DfCOM]

As I mentioned in the video, I think this meshes well with my old podcast episode about the everyday sacred. When everything is sacred and every act is magical, the world becomes a thing of amazing beauty and we are left in awe of it.

I also think this understanding of what it means to live a magical life creates a more holistic mentality than an understanding of magic that focuses on mere spellwork and ritual. It encourages one to see oneself as a witch when getting up in the morning, when doing the dishes, and when showering.

This mentality is also helpful, I think, for those who feel pressure to be magical all the time. I’ve noticed a few times on Twitter people talking about how it’s okay to not work magic if you’re not feeling up to it, even if it’s a full moon or a sabbat. I completely agree, but I’d take it a step further by noting that an intentional decision to take not do something for the sake of your own health is actively living a magical life as well.

New Video: Ritual Planning for Beginners

Image of my and my husband's permanent altar space.

This week, I posted a video about ritual planning for beginners over on my YouTube channel, A Wyrd-Worker’s Wisdom. Be sure to check it out.

[youtube https://youtu.be/Fv1PUSQGs6k]

When I first got started with witchcraft back in 1998, I struggled to figure out why I was doing a ritual. The books I was reading kept telling me that rituals — especially full moon rituals — were important. But I’d look over their example rituals and they seemed so…bland and pointless. They didn’t resonate with me.

For me personally, I think that’s because most books focused on rites performed for the full moon and Sabbats. I think it takes time tor really become comfortable with them. Hell, there are a couple Sabbats — like Mabon — that I’m still not entirely sure what to do with.

I think this is why it’s easier to start ritual planning with simple things, like a daily offering to the Divine. Or perhaps a daily ritual to center, ground, and shield. These are simple, yet important activities that are easily grasped. So it’s easy and good practice to make a ritual out of them. You can even ritualize little everyday practices.

How about you? What advice to you have for beginners who are just getting started with ritual planning?

The Human-Deity Divide: A ResponsE

Image of Freyja standing with spear and shield in front of her cart.
Freya by Johannes Gehrts. Public domain image.

Earlier this week, I ran across Patheos blogger Astrea’s critique of the “Inner Goddess” movement. I agreed with a great deal of her criticisms, though I found myself disagreeing with some of her theological statements. As a fellow polytheist with different views on the human-deity divide, I would like to explore those statements and why I disagree with them.

I believe we have Divine essence within us.

While I may not believe I have a literal deity inside of me, I do believe that there is Divine essence within me. This is because like everyone and everything else, I am part of the One Eternal Reality. Furthermore, it is this Divine essence within me that allows me to reach out to Divinity and connect with it. I cover this in more detail in my first podcast episode.

Also, in my craft practice, that Divine essence within me is what allows me to shape wyrd and become a co-creator with the deities. My whole ability to work magic is predicated on this.

My deities aren’t perfect.

Astrea’s theology seems to elevate gods to a sort of superhuman perfection, which is not how I view my deities at all. She is right that my deities don’t need to use the bathroom. But they are sexual beings. And they can age. There’s a whole myth about it happening, even.

Also, my deities often seem subject to many of the same failings as humans. They can allow their anger to get the better of them. They can be outsmarted and even tricked.

This doesn’t lessen them or make them any less worthy of my respect. It just means that I approach them more soberly and with a little less than total awe. That brings me to my next point.

My deities are close and approachable.

I read Astrea’s descriptions of deities and they seem lofty, abstract, and difficult to approach. My deities are much more earthy than that. They don’t glow. I think Freyja would find the idea of glowing a bit silly, to be honest.

The myths of my deities are rife with them coming to the human world and interacting with humans regularly. They seem to relish that contact. And none of those myths mention the deities glowing or being aloof around their human hosts and companions.

The myths themselves stomp all over the human-deity divide.

In one myth, the god Heimdall gives birth to humans. In other myths and legends, humans seem to ascend to the status of being a deity. This suggests to me that the human-deity divide is not that great. It certainly isn’t insurmountable.

Conclusion

I think that Astrea’s criticisms of the “Inner Godddess movement” are valid and spot on. However, her theology on the nature of the deities and humans differs greatly from my own. Which is fair, and I appreciate her post, as it allows me to explore those differences. Doing so gives me a greater understanding of my own views.

Witchcraft Video: Getting Started

Banner for "A Wyrd-Worker's Wisdom" YouTube Channel

This weekend, I uploaded my second witchcraft video on YouTube. This one is about getting started.

[youtube https://youtu.be/6yg8cwpjnyc]

I appreciate Sarah Anne suggesting this topic to me. It pushed me to think about my recommendations for beginner witches. When people ask how to get started or what to study first, I often reply with, “It depends on what you want to learn.” That’s a true statement. However, it’s not helpful to those just starting out. Going through my personal story while writing this video’s script helped me come up with solid bits of advice. For example, I remembered the basic practices I consider fundamental.

By remembering my own “wrong turns” or “detours,” I remembered to encourage beginners to risk making a few false starts. I found the important message that figuring out what doesn’t work for you — even through trial and error — is an important part of the learning process.

I’m also convinced of the wisdom of my “stick with one book at first” stance. Many will question that position. However, I think that critical engagement with a single text really is important for beginners. With luck, they will seek out further sources as a result of that engagement.

Of course, there is one bit of advice that I did not cover in this witchcraft video. I still think it’s vital to define what one hopes to get out of witchcraft.

Creating Magical Space

Jarred wearing a ritual robe and casting a circle as part of creating magical space.

As I think back on my video about casting a circle, I find myself wondering if I fully answered Catz’s question. You see, I focused specifically on the part of marking out the circle and cutting it away from “ordinary” space. I’ve found that some people also consider calling the quarters as well. I see them as separate acts that are part of a single cumulative process: creating magical space. Some witches I know also call this “constructing the temple.”

To me, this is what the whole opening phase (and I’ll get into the phases of ritual in a future video) of a rite is all about.

  1. We cleanse the space with incense, saltwater, sound, and other methods to make sure it’s cleared of negativity and chaotic energies.
  2. We then mark out the magical space and separate it. As I said in the video, this is what casting the circle is all about.
  3. We then fill that space. By calling the elements in. We ask the Divine to join us. In my work, I also invite the ancestors and land-wights (nature spirits) in.

A well-planned rite or liturgical structure works to make sure that each of those steps work together. It keeps the themes going and offers a sense of cohesiveness. It draws us into our time with the Divine and the work we will do in that magical space.

For those who missed it, here’s my video on casting a circle.

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQ42z40hk8]

I’m not sure whether I’ll do a video about the other components of creating magical space. Let me know if that’s something you’d find useful.

The thoughts of a gay witch living in upstate New York.