My problem with Wicca is the shifting theology. It seems that some Wiccans are monotheistic (a single mother goddess), some are duotheistic (mother goddess plus companion male god), and some are polytheistic. For me, these sorts of theological considerations need to be at the center of the discussion about the legitimacy for any religion. In the case of Wiccan, its origins seem to come fairly directly from one man's reworkings of victorian mysticism, (particularly the duotheist strain), and then has been turned into a feminist theology (dianistic wiccanism, which is basically monotheistic), and a seemingly more modern polytheism that is more influenced by paganism. Without the solid theological base, Wicca looks to me to be more about the ritual than about the theology.
I'm curious to know, Dissentowner (and I'm asking these as serious questions, not to mock you or your beliefs), what, in your mind makes a Wiccan? Is it anyone who identifies themselves as such? Would you consider someone who believes in different pagan gods (or no gods) to still be part of the same Wiccan religion that you belong to? Do you believe that someone needs to have a legitimate claim the the Gardnerian lineage of Wicca (being initiated into a valid coven and such)? What about someone who believes in the same gods as you, but doesn't practice any of the rituals?
These questions aren't so different from ones I would ask Christians, where there can be so many different interpretations and variations in theology. But in Christianity, everything is organized into churches with a central authority dictating belief, practice and ritual. Unless you're a Gardnerian, I don't think you get that in Wicca.
|