Letters We encourage readers to send us comments! We may assume that they are available for publishing and forwarding to relevant parties unless you state otherwise. If you do not want your name or city printed, please let us know how you would like your letter signed. Opinions of authors in New Moon Rising and especially in the Letters section do not necessarily reflect those of New Moon Rising. A Witch by Any Other Name There was quite a response to Don Kraig's The Stealing of Wicca in the last issue. Here are two representative letters and Don Kraig's responses. There are vital questions about what Wicca is or should be. To have any hope for useful answers, we must first clarify these questions. W.I.T.C.H. For the first time since purchasing your magazine I am moved to write a letter protesting someone else's words. While making some good points in his column, Mr. Kraig's opinion that one must be initiated into Wicca by a High Priestess or Priest only after being approved as right for Wicca is quite harsh. Perhaps Mr. Kraig would publish a list of those he feels qualified to make this judgment in his next column, so that solitaries such as myself may at last be real true Wiccans! Although I've only been involved with the study of Wicca for a little more than sixteen years now, I've never met the coven or high priestess that I felt was right to initiate me into their group and/or tradition. Am I less than worthy because I initiated myself? I take no money or fees for any instruction passed on to others on the path. Is this why I'm not a real Wiccan? I own a book Mr. Kraig quotes as suggesting only saying I'm a witch three times to be a true Wiccan, capable of starting covens and teaching. This was a book called Sisterhood is Powerful, and the segment quoted was from a manifesto published in 1970 by an organization calling itself W.I.T.C.H. It did indeed advise that you are a witch by saying aloud `I am a witch' three times, and thinking about that. It did NOT claim you were qualified to teach, although it did say you could form your own coven, suggesting 13 as a nice cozy number. What is a coven besides a group of like-minded individuals gathering to share knowledge and power? A further quote reads your power comes from your own self as a woman, and it is activated by working in concert with your sisters. I am enclosing a copy of the entire manifesto, which I have saved for quite some time. [It follows this letter—SR.] Maybe it will clear up Mr. Kraig's apprehensions on that score, at least.. Mr. Kraig also seems to take exception to Dianic witches, and especially to their beautiful chant, Isis, Astarte. I am only expressing my opinion here, but it seems to me that this is a chant praising the Goddess in all her forms (Maiden, Mother, and Crone). Also, some research would indicate that Kali is one and the same as the Celtic Cailleach, which definitely indicate a similarity with Hecate, adding to the similarity mentioned in Mr. Kraig's column, that of Isis and Astarte. There was much in Mr. Kraig's column that I agreed with, especially that regarding the danger from within. However, I think there is more danger to us all by Wicca developing into a religion of dogma, which seems to be what Mr. Kraig is advocating. Possibly his definition of traditional Wicca says one thing, the Farrars' another, and my definition yet another. Isn't this what Wicca is all about? To quote a famous fictional alien, Infinite diversity in infinite combinations may be what has kept witchcraft alive, if only barely, all these years. Perhaps tradition is what one makes it. If Wicca is to grow into the 21st century and beyond, we must not let ourselves be tied to the same tradition; surely that is only the way to stagnation and eventual demise. I hope Mr. Kraig's column is not merely the latest salvo in the witch wars of which I for one am growing very weary. Anna Teresa Aubry
Charlotte, NC What is WITCH? WITCH is an all-women Everything. It's theater, revolution, magic, terror, joy, garlic flowers, spells. It's an awareness that Witches and gypsies were the original guerrillas and resistance fighters against oppression—particularly the oppression of women—down through the ages. Witches have always been women who dared to be: groovy, courageous, aggressive, intelligent, nonconformist, explorative, curious, independent, sexually liberated, revolutionary. (This possibly explains why nine million of them have been burned.) Witches were the first Friendly Heads and Dealers, the first birth control practitioners and abortionists, the first alchemists (turn dross into gold and you devalue the whole idea of money!). They bowed to no man, being the living remnants of the oldest culture of all—one in which men and women were equal sharers in a truly cooperative society, before the death-dealing sexual, economic, and spiritual repression of the Imperialist Phallic Society took over and began to destroy nature and human society. WITCH lives and laughs in every woman. She is the free part of each of us, beneath the shy smiles, the acquiescence to absurd male domination, the make-up or flesh-suffocating clothing our sick society demands. There is no joining WITCH. If you are a woman and dare to look within yourself, you are a Witch. You make your own rules. You are free and beautiful. You can be invisible or evident in how you choose to make your Witch-self known. You can form your own coven of sister-Witches (thirteen is a cozy number for a group) and do your own actions. Whatever is repressive, solely male-oriented, greedy, puritanical, authoritarian—those are your targets. Your weapons are theater, satire, explosions, magic, herbs, music, costumes, cameras, masks, chants, stickers, stencils and paint, films, tambourines, bricks, brooms, guns, voodoo dolls, cats, candles, bells, chalk nail clippings, hand grenades, poison rings, fuses, tape recorders, incense—your own boundless, beautiful imagination. Your power comes from your own self as a woman, and it is activated by working in concert with your sisters. The power of the coven is more than the sum of its individual members, because it is together. You are pledged to free our brothers from oppression and stereotyped sexual roles (whether they like it or not) as well as ourselves. You are a Witch by saying aloud, I am a Witch three times, and thinking about that. You are a Witch by being female, angry, joyous, and immortal. The fluidity and wit of the Witches is evident in the ever-changing acronym: the basic, original title was Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell, but on Mother's Day one coven became Women Infuriated at Taking Care of Hoodlums; another group, working at a major Eastern insurance corporation, became Women Indentured to Traveler's Corporate Hell; still another set of infiltrators, working at Bell Telephone, manifested themselves disruptively as Women Incensed at Telephone Company Harassment. When hexing inflationary prices at supermarkets, a Midwestern coven appeared as Women's Independent Taxpayers, Consumers, and Housewives; Women Interested in Toppling Consumption Holidays was another transfigutory appellation—and the latest heard at this writing is Women Inspired to Commit Herstory. (Excerpted from Sisterhood is Powerful,
Vantage Books, 1970) Don Kraig responds: It is clear from your letter that your opinions are both strong and heartfelt, which is why I am responding to your letter as I feel that it does deserve a response. You start out by saying that you are protesting someone else's words, yet you accuse me of writing things that I did not write. Nowhere did I write that one must be initiated into Wicca by a High Priestess or Priest only after being approved as `right for Wicca.' What I did write was a statement of recent historic fact. People would enter the outer court of a Wiccan tradition and spend over a year studying and practicing to see if Wicca was a good path for them. This time would also allow the High Priest or High Priestess to see if the candidate was right for Wicca. I never said that this is what must be. In fact, you must have missed the statement that, Whether Wiccans take action against them [the things I described] (or even if they should take action against them) is something that I believe should be discussed between Wiccans everywhere. Since I never made the comments you claimed I did, your next comment, requesting a list of people is irrelevant. You ask that since you have not been initiated by another, are you less worthy? I never wrote anything about the worth or value of a person, whether or not he or she was initiated by another. Actually, I have a great deal of respect for those who struggle on their own with little guidance save their own desires and research. You say that you take no money of fees for any instruction passed on to others on the path. So? I know dozens, if not hundreds of people who not only take no money, but (like you, no doubt) put out hundred or thousands of hours and much of their own money every year to give instruction to others. I also know of people who charge for instruction. How a person chooses to share has no bearing on whether or not a person is a real Wiccan. Which brings up an interesting point. Each of us are who and what we are. Why is it important to you to be called a real Wiccan? Frankly, I don't care if I'm referred to as Witch, Wiccan, Pagan, Neo-Pagan or something else. I know what I am and to me that's all that matters. Still, perhaps it is important to decide who is a real Wiccan. If we do not make this determination, it is possible that a Satanist could claim that Satan worship and human sacrifice are part of Wicca. Impossible? Satanist Anton LeVey has already published a book on Satanism entitled The Complete Witch (and recently republished as The Satanic Witch). Or perhaps a Christian could tell everyone that he was a Witch and now he and all of his followers should become Christians. Impossible? It happened a few years ago in San Francisco. What should we as Wiccans do about this? I don't know, but I do think we should begin to talk about it. I have no apprehensions concerning the manifesto in Sisterhood is Powerful. What I do have apprehensions about are small groups of people with political agendas who try to say that their religiopolitical stance is Wicca per se. Or perhaps that is the future of Wicca. Certainly, this is something Wiccans should talk about. Is the manifesto a political statement? Well, it is interesting to note that in telling women how to become Witches there is not even one mention of the Goddess or the God. There are, however, plenty of calls to political activity and thought. Is it not possible, Ms. Aubry, that the use of the term Witch was chosen to offend male society as part of their political agenda? Note, too, that each definition of the acronym WITCH is politically based. In fact, is it not possible that when they talk about becoming a Witch they mean WITCH, a politically active woman? That's what their manifesto seems to imply. I would also point out (since you stress it in your letter) that their method of becoming a Witch is to say you are a Witch three times and think about your statement. I hope neither you nor I ever need surgery and find a person who is a surgeon because he or she said I'm a surgeon three times and then thought about it. Not only do I not take exception to Dianic Witches, I have never even written about Dianic Witches. However, the Isis, Astarte chant is definitely not their chant. It began as a song of praise. As such, it is beautiful. But I have seen numerous groups use it to raise energy. I do not think it would be a good ideal to call on Kali if you are doing a ritual for healing as Her form of healing might not be what you desire. Yet, I have seen people do exactly that by using the Isis, Astarte chant to raise energy for healing. I agree with you, it is beautiful and it does praise the Goddess in all her forms, and when used that way it is fantastic. You're absolutely right that there is danger in Wicca becoming a religion of dogma. However, contrary to your claim, I have never suggested that it should become such a thing, nor do I believe it should become such. However, if people are willing to accept anything as Wicca if somebody simply calls what they are doing such, is it not possible that a backlash of dogmatism will result? I think this is possible, and it is only by discussing it that we will, hopefully, come up with answers, or at the very least, directions. I agree with you completely that for Wicca to grow we must not be tied to the past. As I wrote, Wicca must change as we move into the 21st century. But what will those changes be? Can we guide the changes? Should we guide the changes? If there are no standards as to what Wicca is, a woman Satanist could say that what her Satanism is, is Wicca. If everything is allowed, how could we say that she is not practicing Wicca? If you agree with me on this, then there already are Wiccan standards. But who should set up the standards? Should we have standards? I don't know. I don't have the answers. I do believe, however, that if we don't answer these questions then others will answer them for us. Already some fundamentalist Christians define Wiccans as deluded Satanists. I do not think that we should let others define us. I believe that we must talk about these things. I encourage you to talk about them with your friends and coveners. I do not have the answers, but together we may find some of them. Discipline or Dogma? I was deeply disturbed by Donald Michael Kraig's article, The Stealing of Wicca. I agree with some things he said, but I am frightened by others. Indeed, the Craft has undergone wild growth, as befits a religion that includes the Green God. Although many still attack us, Witchcraft is no longer a crime in many nations, and most of us need not fear being burned or hanged. But what about destruction from within? I would like to address some of Kraig's specific points. Kraig cites deficiencies in training, and I am sure these occur. And yet some of the examples he gives hardly support his case. He talks of rituals that blended the descriptions of a multitude of gods and goddesses, some of [whom] were in direct opposition to one another. Excuse me? Who are these goddesses that oppose each other? I know that Yahweh opposes almost everybody, but that is one of the reasons I don't worship him. Sure, there are conflicting deities: Osiris and Set, Odin and Loki come to mind. But these are hardly in direct opposition in any kind of negative fashion. Their contrasts provide polarity, one of the mainstays of magic. Likewise, the chant Isis, Astarte, Diana, Hekate, Demeter, Kali, Innanna is not a taxonomic grouping of similar goddesses. It is a chant of power, weaving together the names of contrasting (not opposing) goddesses to invoke the power behind them all. And we should not forget that contrasting goddesses have been merged repeatedly in the histories of many polytheistic religions. Take Athene, for example: the Minoan Lady of the Owls was swallowed whole by Greek religion and spewed forth from the brow of Zeus, armor-clad. Why is it a good thing for covens to have secret names for the Goddess? Last time I checked, I wasn't able to name Her. I've always thought of that as one of the Mysteries. I can call Her anything I want, secret or public, but the Goddess sums up as well as anything Her absolute transcendence of names. It seems to me that secrets play a different role in covens, defining and strengthening (we hope) the relationships among the coveners. But it hardly seems a required part of Wicca. Kraig says of joining the Craft, Just look—you'll find somebody to initiate you. There has been a lot of controversy in Wiccan circles about self-initiation, and the authority to initiate, but I think the answer is obvious. Only the Goddess has the power to initiate. If the Goddess has called you, you are a Witch. If She has not called you, all the covens in the land could have made you a member, and yet you are not a Witch. The Goddess called me, somewhat unexpectedly. A lunation later, I repeated I am a Witch, three times, not as initiation, but as acknowledgment, and I have spent the five years since living up to that promise. That is not to say that coven initiations are meaningless. They have a different function, that of accepting a person into a religious community. Such an initiation is necessarily in addition to being called by the Goddess: If I were HP of a coven, and Starhawk, or Buckland, or Kraig, or even Gerald Gardner himself were to seek to join, I would expect them to be initiated just like anyone else. But this brings us to the more basic question of what it means to be a Witch. Let us assume for a moment that we are sitting on the High Wiccan Tribunal and passing on the qualifications of would-be Witches. Members of other religions are expected to adhere to commandments and creeds and such, so it might seem reasonable to expect Witches to adhere to ours. Like the Rede: If it harm none, do what you will. Should we demand that all Witches follow that? Well, not all Christians and Jews follow the commandments, and anyway, rede means counsel, not commandment. How many Witches do you know that reject the Rede? How many non-Witches have told you that they think it is a good idea? Let's move on and see if we can find a law to uphold. The Great Mother says, My law is love unto all beings. I have some Christian friends that do a pretty good job on that one. Are they thus Witches? And what of all these outside influences in Wicca? Are we diluting its purity? I wonder what the Old Europeans thought about outside influences: We already have four perfectly good Sabbats, so why should we bother with all this solstice and equinox stuff? A God in the sun? You've got to be kidding. Everybody knows the God is in the forest. Wicca, like many other polytheistic religions, is fundamentally syncretist. To deny that is to impose a stricture without historical precedent. I personally agree that Satan is a Christian god, but who are we to tell Satanists that they are Christians? Is that any better than Christians telling us that we are Satanists? Kraig's objection to Dianic Wicca is unclear. Perhaps he is unhappy with those Dianic Witches that may claim to speak for all Witches. With that I agree. But the issue is not that they are a minority; religion is not democracy, and the majority, thank the Lady, does not rule. The issue is rather the claim of authority. A basic part of Wiccan theology in my view is that you are the only authority you have. If I wanted an authoritarian religion, I could have been a Christian. Some of the more destructive parts of Christianity involve stealing people's magic, and ultimately their souls, by telling them who to believe and how to worship. Is it worth turning Wicca to this just to protect its name? I think a lot of the problems that Kraig points to are simply growing pains. Consider Christianity. In the early years, you could become lion food for being a Christian. The Christian community was small and well-disciplined, because everyone in it was totally devoted and totally involved. As Christianity expanded, beliefs diverged. This divergence was threatening to many, and resulted in such things as inquisitions, crusades, and the Burning Times. And now we live in a world where the average Christian knows little about the history of her religion, its liturgies, or its basic theology. As Wicca grows, it may pass through similar stages. I beg the Goddess that we avoid inquisitions, and I think we abandon our roots if we set up a priestessly class that controls access to the sacred. So the alternative could be a world full of clueless Witches. And I ask, is this worse than a world of clueless Christians? I think that the problems of Wicca are best addressed not by dwelling on the presumed shortcomings of others, but rather by turning to ourselves. If we each follow the Rede, speak the truth of our beliefs, honor both our friends and our enemies, and live our lives in touch with the sacred, how can Wicca fail? I'd like to end with a quote, an appeal to authority if you will, from the Star Goddess: And you who seek to know Me, know that your seeking and yearning will avail you not, unless you know the Mystery: for if that which you seek, you find not within yourself, you will never find it without. Curtis Clark
Rancho Cucamonga, CA Don Kraig responds: Mr. Clark missed the point of my article. I clearly stated that over the past two decades I have seen the Craft go through a great deal of change. I believe that some of the current changes will destroy what Wicca has been and currently is, but, as I also wrote, Whether Wiccans take action against them [the changes] (or even if they should take action against them) is something that I believe should be discussed between Wiccans everywhere (emphasis added). Rather than discuss the issues, Mr. Clark's letter implies that I am simply wrong. He states why in his letter, but there are flaws in his arguments. His use of the words conflicting, contrasting and opposing changes the focus to those words rather than the actual point at hand. If you are planning a ritual for healing I do not think it would be a good idea to call on Kali. Her form of healing might not be your intention. Yet, if you use the Isis Astarte chant to raise energy for that healing that is exactly what you will be doing. Mr. Clark also errs here. The Isis Astarte chant did not begin as a chant of power. It began and remains a glorious song of ecstatic worship. As such it is magnificent. I recently had the pleasure of seeing a wonderful pair of musicians perform it at the Covenant of the Goddess' Merry Meet festival. It was fantastic. I never claimed that it was a good thing for covens to have secret names for the Goddess. I stated that for years, many covens held as secret the name by which the members addressed the Goddess. That an historic fact and is neither good nor bad. Consistently working with one manifestation of the Goddess has great value. Today, more and more people are working with Her in Her many faces. I immediately stated (and Mr. Clark ignored): Perhaps this [covens and individuals working with the Goddess in a multitude of forms rather than one form] is the future of Wicca. Perhaps it is its destruction. Only time will tell and only individuals can make a difference. Mr. Clark writes, If the Goddess has called you, you are a Witch. This means that a man or woman could claim that the Goddess has called on him or her and that Witchcraft is the worship of Satan through human sacrifice. By Mr. Clark's definition, that person is a Witch and is describing Witchcraft. When people go on the various Fundamentalist Christian media and claim to be Satanic Witches I can ask, Into what tradition where you initiated? What were your rituals? Who gave you that tradition? If the person doesn't give an adequate answer (which, of course, they can't), I can rightfully denounce them. By your definition all you can ask is, Did the Goddess call you? The person might honestly feel that he or she was called by the Goddess and truthfully answer, Yes. By your definition you must say, Okay, you're a Witch. If this seems far-fetched I would point out that this happened a few years ago in San Francisco. I would also point out that Satanist Anton LeVey republished his Satan-oriented book, The Complete Witch as The Satanic Witch. Mr. Clark's I was called argument doesn't let people defend the Craft. Perhaps his argument is really self-justification since he claims that he was in some way called by the Goddess, one month later said I am a Witch three times and is thus a Witch. I respect those who struggle on their own and have little contact with others. I would ask, though, what's wrong with thorough, planned-out training? This leads us back to one of the questions my article implied—should people become Witches by stating that they are a Witch or should they go through some form of training leading to initiation? I don't have the answer, but, as I wrote, it should be discussed between Wiccans everywhere. I am against a High Wiccan Tribunal, but should a man or woman who has read one book and said I'm a Witch three times define what Witchcraft is? Right now, that is happening. What should we do about this? Should we do anything about this? I believe it should be discussed. Mr. Clark's knowledge of history is not as strong as his feelings about the Craft. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance few people roamed more than a short distance from their home. There were little outside influences. Earlier, the bringing of Solar Worship to the British Isles was done as a result of invasion. It did not happen by accident or choice. Concerning Satanists, Mr. Clark again missed my point. There are Satanic groups that want the support of the occult community. Some Witches think we should side with them against Fundamentalist Christians. Should we identify ourselves with Satanists, who, I believe, are more Christian than Pagan? I say no, but I think it is something Wiccans should discuss. Mr. Clark says that my objection to Dianic Wicca is unclear. That's because I have no objection to Dianic Wicca. My objection is with a small, vocal group of self-described feminists who have a political agenda. The agenda includes goddess worship, and they are trying to imply that what they do is Witchcraft per se. This is not a definition of Dianic Wicca. In my article I did not use the term Dianic because they are not the people I was talking about. Are some of those with a political agenda Dianics? Some are, some are not. But Mr. Clark has missed the question. Should a small minority with a political agenda define what Wicca is? Are they doing it? This, too, should be discussed. In my original article I described baggage: attitudes and notions which people bring to the Craft from their past. The period of study and work before initiation helps a person eliminate baggage. Mr. Clark asks if it worth turning Wicca into a type of Christianity just to protect its name. This is the type of either-or thinking that usually comes with Christian training. I would ask, Is there nothing in between? Is there not a third or fourth or fifth alternative? Mr. Clark claims that Wicca must either be an authoritarian religion or a religion in which the individual is the only authority. This is a choice of all or nothing. Is there no other way? Not only is this the same type of either-or thinking, but to hold the latter view would allow anything to be considered Witchcraft. Either-or thinking is also the basis of your question, is a world of clueless Witches any worse than a world of clueless Christians? I think that a world of trained individuals who love the Goddess and the God would be preferable to either. Why not strive for that? True, the problems I described are growing pains. Should we not discuss them? Should we not direct our future? Which way should we go? The Craft is changing and we should decide what those changes should be. Mr. Clark's letter indicates a misunderstanding about coven initiation. Initiates are Witch and Priest/ess. Initiatory Witchcraft does not separate the individual from the God or Goddess by way of an intercessory elite. Rather, each High Priest and High Priestess guides people to a greater understanding of self and the divine. They have helped to make my personal link to the divine strong. I thank each of them for it. Mr. Clark's argument seems to be based on me generation attitudes. He writes that I'm a Witch if I say so. A basic part of Wiccan theology is that I am the only authority. We should focus on ourselves (i.e., me). But what about society? What about our brothers and sisters in the Goddess? I would add this to the end of your letter: If you have no one to help you along the way, how will you know if you have found what you seek within you? After all, what you seek is a great Mystery. Once again I ask, what is the future of Witchcraft? Witchcraft is changing, and in that sense it is being stolen from what it was ten and twenty years ago. Are the changes good or bad? How can we encourage desired changes discourage bad ones? Can we even direct the future of Wicca? It is all in our hands. Healing Circle We are starting a Healing Circle for survivors of abuse in Covens. Our purpose is to heal our inner wounds and find a true and spiritual path in Wicca. All ages welcome. [New Moon Rising will forward inquiries.] D.B.,
Pennsylvania | 
