Gardener & Wicca?

Don't tell them they sound like a "One Book Religion", and lack credibility, as the truth, often bounces right off people like that.

Think it, all the same, if you want.

People like that are not worth any greater effort.

I am glad you are following your own path, and not simply putting on the blinkers and following the narrow, "safe" road.

Enjoy. That is what life is for, after all.

Animist.

Well to be in traditional Wicca, it did start with Gardener. From that point some did split off and start new traditions. After those people decided they didn't want or maybe couldn't find a coven locally. That's where the solitary came in. Within that title people can pick and choose to make their own tradition, even if no one else follows it, it is theirs. Nothing wrong with that at all as far as I'm concerned but there are many traditional types that would argue that point.

I found the traditions to be too stricked for me. I didn't like not having the freedom to go where I wanted with a ritual. So I went on the solitary path. Now I honestly can't say that my path is remotely Wiccan.

To the point though, no Gardener isn't the only way to be Wiccan.

EDIT: I like what labgrrl has pointed out about the history. One thing that I realized just recently is that I believe people are taking things out of contexted. When someone says Wicca has it's roots in ancient times, what I believe they are saying is that the Gods and Goddesses that are worshipped. Cause really there is nothing about Wicca other than that that could be considered ancient. People are reading into the history what they want. They want to feel like they are following some ancient religion like it gives it more validity. Feeling comfortable in your beliefs doesn't not require anyone else's approval.

Not going into the samatics, because it was Gardener that created Wicca *as a religion*. This is aside from where the word itself came from or what it means, though naming the religion by this word was because of what the word meant.

The many other paths that were added to it later only contributed to changes of it. There are books that clearly describe the process of how Wicca, as a religion, developed. I think these days people accept there are now other forms of Wicca but to refuse to accept where it came from and the fact that if you wish to be a traditional Wiccan then you really do have to follow the Gardnarian/Alexandrean paths would be a bit ignorant (purposely refusing to learn what is readily available to learn) in my opinion. Anything else is a branch off, related but not traditional.

Short version is that Gardner pulled ideas and beliefs from the Freemasons (mostly ritual ideas) and other private groups. The religious ideas came from the early 1900's understanding of Egyptian religions and mixing it with early European tribal religions (at least what we thought we knew of them) from several pre-Christian eras. He did claim British Witchcraft lineage but no one has been able to come up with proof of that. The Native American and more Northern Celtic traditions were added more recently as far as anyone can tell, after Gardner's death (the early 60's I think?).

As for Wicca being a religion before Gardner made it one, that is false. He only drew some ideas from earlier beliefs, as has any other modern religion. Those that don't change with the times tend to fizzle out for the most part.

Edit, I did want to add that I don't believe for a second that the offshoots should be considered less of a religion just because they may not be strictly Gardnerian, just that it cant be considered traditional if it isnt, that's all.

Native American beliefs are NOT Wiccan. Don't believe me? Ask a Native American. Not only will they disagree with you, they may very well be offended by the suggestion.

Wicca is not anything you want it to be. Words have definition. You can't just take a random belief and say "it's Wicca."

Please give your definition of Wicca and some rationale why your definition makes any sense before you start arguing that Wicca isn't just Gardnerian. Because the NeoPagan community does agree nowadays that "Wicca" only applies to practices that descend from Gardner. You can't just make up a new definition and expect people to agree with you.

BTW, if you want any credibility at all, learn how to spell his name. You don't appear serious at all. How can I believe you know anything about Gardner when you can't even spell his name?

Edit: just to clarify, when I say all Wicca descends from Gardner, I do not mean all Wiccans have to be part of the Gardnerian Tradition. I recognise that there are hundreds of trads out there, plus eclectics. But all of those paths originate with Gardner. If what you practice has nothing to do with Gardner (such as Feri), then it isn't Wicca.

Edit2: We're not being intolerant. You'r welcome to hold whatever religious beliefs that you want. But when you spout bald face erroneous statements about history and other cultures, we will correct you. Trying to hide your mistakes under the cloak of tolerance is a blatant fluffy bunny tactic. There is a difference between facts, opinions, and personal gnosis. Please learn the difference.

"I have seen a contiunious line from Druids and Celts alike"

Cite your source and talk to a CR. They will either laugh at you or hit you. They do not thank you for claiming thier traditions and calling it Wicca when it wasn't.

"I mean Wicca encompasses many paths from American Indian"

They will not and do not thank you for stealing thier beliefs. If you are not an Native American, then you have no right to them. That is if you even know them. Many times you must be a memeber of the tribe to recieve it. Other times they give the white man some bs and go back to thier life. It is not Wicca.

"Didn't say Gardener MADE Wicca, I said he made it popular again"

Cite your source because that is BS

"with all these people who insist Gardener is the ONLY way to wicca"

I didn't see a single answer that said that. You are misreading the answers.

Firstly I am not Wiccan but this question is very interesting as the whole thing is something that really annoys me.

Traditional (Gardnerian) Wicca is a well documented and strict religion with specific inititory rites of entry and progression and sabbat rituals, these were first documented for Wicca by Gardner. Alexandrian Wicca is a progression from this practise but is in general very much similar. Both of these "traditions" call their initiated members witches, therefore you cannot be Wiccan without being either neophyte to a coven or an actual witch. Neither of these practises encompass Native American beliefs and if I was Native American I would find your suggestion highly offensive.

We now have the neo-pagans, they are not Wiccan. These eclectic "nice thing grabbing" spiritualists should not call themselves Wiccan, I know if I was Wiccan I would find that offensive too.

I am a Reconstructionist Heathen, I get extremely angry when I see parts of my faith misrepresented by Saex-Wicca and eclectic neo-paganism. Germanic faiths are very well documented in sagas and documents, some written before the Christian conversion of Europe, notably none of the practises of Wiccan are found in these sources.

Before Gardner was Crowley, his teachings were of a God, not Goddess, but much of the sabbat ritual is similar to elements of the Gnostic Mass invented by Crowley for the OTO after leaving the Golden Dawn. Crowley never used the world Wiccan even though he was regarded as the greatest witch/occultist of his time.

The whole confusion about this word comes from TV shows such as Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Please remember these TV programs are FANTASY. If you don't believe the teaching of Gardner, Sanders, et. al. then you are an eclectic neo-pagan, a reconstructionist or some other pagan/spiritualist but you are not a Wiccan.

All religions are created by human beings. Wiccans just happen to be closer to the creation of our faith than many other religions. In other words, no, it doesn't invalidate the religion, any more than knowing that the man known as the first Buddha "made up" Buddhism invalidates Buddhism. In other words: Yes, Wicca was founded by Gerald Gardner (note the spelling) and his immediate circle in the 1940s. As has already been pointed out, Crowley had little (if anything) to do with the creation of Wicca. I highly recommend "The Triumph of the Moon" by Ronald Hutton if you want a university-trained historian's viewpoint on the origins of the Wiccan religion.

I am not sure how you can say that Native American and other pre-JudeoChristian beliefs are encompassed by Wicca. Gardner invented Wicca by combining a bunch in indigenous beliefs with some new aged writings and throwing in some rituals of existing nonreligious mystery traditions.

Are you confusing Wicca with Paganism??

If you want to call yourself Wiccan, you should follow Wicca.

If you want to be a spiritualist, with a Wicca influence then do that.

But dont call yourself Wiccan if your grabbing 99% other stuff, 1% wicca.

Garderian Tradition Wicca is the Original form of Wicca, therefore it is viewed as the central aspect. Wicca has Traditional, Reformed and Ecclectic, but Ecclectic is also limited, once you add Tai-Chi, Praises to YHVH, Spirit Guides and Polynesian Gods, dont call yourself Wiccan, because your not. Your a spiritualist with influences of Wicca.

That is why people insist on a Traditional sense, otherwise you get dumb little fluffies spreading misinformation, claiming Native American practices to be part of Wicca, when in an actual fact, they have nothing to do with it, and pre-date it my a long way... Wicca only being about 50 years old.

In this world you have to stand tall, be proud and follow your own path. Personally i don't follow wicca as i personally find it too mamby pamby. I have always followed the old and ancient traditional path "La Vecchia Religione" (The Gospel of the Witches) as it's thousands of years old whereas the wicca thing is less than 60 yrs old and the 'new age' thing that's currently around. Mostly, everyone already knows that good and bad are opposite sides of the same coin therefore they're alleged 'rede' of "An it harm none do as ye will" just doesn't make any sense. Nothing and no-one is ALL good and nothing and no-one is all bad. It's all a mixture of both and to suggest otherwise is to upset karma and the natural order of things. Because of this i cannot take wicca as anything serious at all, BUT, that's just my own personal opinions and if you're one that tarries with such an idea then stand tall and support what you believe.

It's one of the dangers of becoming an accepted religion. People will start claiming their way is the only right way. Wiccans have an opportunity to become a truly encompassing faith if they can resist the temptation of following the Abrahamic religions down the path of believing they are the only keepers of the one truth. Many people are starting to look seriously at Wicca as a real answer to their questions and undoubtedly some of them will be those that have the potential to become fundamentalist. Fundamentalism in any faith is something to be resisted with everything in your power.