![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
In an attempt to put it somewhere where it won't get bogged down in the stupid argument about whether being a priest means not having to have an intercessor between self and gods, rather than, y'know, having the obligations of clergy:
- Wicca as originally conceived is an initiatory mystery priesthood religion. All dedicants had to have a certain level of focus and interest in pursuit of the goal in the early years, because training was hard to find. Levels of training/priesthood established depth and possibly to a certain extent direction of calling (though Wicca is far from the first religion to have clerical rank). BTW and the other traditionalist Wicca lines are holding closely to this original concept.
Historically speaking, mystery religions have existed on the edges of a mainstream of people sharing roughly the same cultural context. There would be a mainline complex of faiths, and then people who were interested in something more specific, there were the Mysteries. Sometimes the Mysteries were very large, encompassing major festivals or subsets of the population; sometimes they were very small and particular. Going through some of the Mysteries conveyed particular status or titles in everyday life. There was also a great deal of feedback back and forth between the larger community and its Mystery organisations, with bastardised forms of the idioms of Mystery becoming a part of the main culture (which in its way can deepen the effectiveness of Mystery).
As modern paganism grew and developed, it started developing a mainstream culture. (For better and for worse.) That mainstream culture, these days, is dominated by outer court traditionalist Wiccan practices, with some cross-fertilisation from other groups (feminist spirituality is a big one in the US). This has created a pool of shared idiom and cross-fertilising culture among modern pagans.
From that pool of shared idiom has developed what amounts to the mainstream complex of modern pagan religion, much like the ancient mainstream religious practices that supported the mystery cults on the side. It is very largely Wiccan in flavor, due in significant part to the power of the structure that Gardner and his compatriots put together. The symbolism, the structure, and the theology can carry meaning without that meaning being created by the mysteries, which is a great credit to the underlying vision.
So now we have the traditional Wicca on the side of a largely Wiccan-idiom mainstream, partially duplicating the historical position of Mystery cults. The mainstream has a dominant religion, which is eclectic Wicca, and there is cross-fertilisation in a variety of directions. The mainstream-pagan eclecticism has also spawned its own religions with their own priests, many of which refer to themselves as 'Wicca' in at least some form.
There will always be a spectrum of religious devotion in any group of humans. I believe the degree system of traditional Wicca is, in part, an attempt to register this, that even among folks with a calling some will be called to levels of more intensity, greater obligation, etc. When the mainstream is included, you get folks who range from secular religionists to heavily dedicated laity who don't want to take on the responsibilities and obligations of priesthood.
My feeling on the question of "What is Wicca?" is complex. I don't think that the traditionalist end of Wicca has necessarily adapted well to having a mainstream, a laity, of religious witchcraft folks who aren't engaged in their Mysteries, who just want to celebrate the Wheel of the Year and revere the gods. I also don't think that the mainstream eclectic Wiccans are as aware of the possibility that their experiences may not be the same experiences as the traditionalists' as they could be. (They may be, but without experiencing both sets of mysteries, there's no way to tell.)
I think it's important to recognise all these things: the importance of the mystery traditions, both historically and as options for those people who are called to experience those particular mysteries; the importance of a mainstream shared idiom and a community context in which a priesthood can exist; /and/ the broad pool of the laity who are called to the gods in ways that are not priesthood.
I think resolving the debate of legitimacy between BTW-and-similar and the eclectic Wiccans really needs that level of distance and recognition that these things are, at least potentially, really dealing with different things. I think the argument is too far gone for either to claim 'Wicca' exclusively, much though it would make some conversations earlier. I hope that at some point the traditionalist way is recognised as a legitimate calling rather than "elitism" and the mainstream-eclectic as a legitimate practice-set containing other legitimate callings rather than "bastardisation".
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
"Historical mystery cults" is really too broad of a generalistaion for any comparison.
Personally, I see this as having more in common with the establishment and growth of christianity, than anything from pre christian pagandom. Both christianity and the modern wiccan movement seem to have established a 'clergy' first, unlike the 'historical' evolution of clergy or priestly classes in older religions. What's going on between BTW and eclectic wicca is comparable to the Roman Church and the reformation movement.
As far as the obligations of clergy goes, one could say that 'historically' the foremost obligation is one of intercession between gods and laiety. That is the job. The whole idea is to ensure the gods are appeased and pleased, thus bestowing benefits upon the people.
From:
no subject
As to historical Mystery cults -- generally there have been the mainline religious practices, like, say, the citywide practices of the Greeks. The mainstream religion contained both public festivals and private worship at things like personal shrines -- the design of a classical Greek house includes a central altar and firepit setup, for example. Then there were the mystery cults, where people who had particular devotions to particular deities would go and, for example, learn the secrets of Dionysios. Not all Mysteries were private to that level; I seem to recall from some of
And yes -- it's a job, where the job is addressing the needs of the gods (or a specific god) for the good of the community. It's not the only way to worship or serve the gods, nor is it the only religious path worth following. The potter is as much in service to Khnum as His priest may be; different forms, different jobs, both valuable. The priest remains a priest, and the potter remains a potter.
From:
no subject
I am just thinking here, but I look at this differently.
I have always thought that the "job" was to bring people closer to their god/goddess/diety/higher self. The job would have a meaning for people more than the diety therefore would be tending the needs of the people. I have often thought that people can be far too egotistical about religion, definition of higher powers, or our position in the universe. I suppose my point here is that it is possible to work for the god in the sense that you devote your life to promoting it, but you will actually work for the people.
Am I misunderstanding what the two of you are saying here?
From:
no subject
Well, I'll talk about Egypt, which I know best. The innermost portions of the temples, where the god lived, were not accessible to the public. The seniormost priests were basically the servants in the god's mansion, responsible for providing food, clothing, annointing oils, etc., according to the requirements of the god.
This maintained the relationship between the community and the god by making sure that the needs of the god were addressed, but doesn't involve interaction with the people.
At the same time, the Wab priests, the purity priests, tended to serve three month terms in the local temple and spend the remaining nine months working normal jobs in their communities. One presumes that this led to a general level of awareness of the ways of the temple among the common people, and that this probably carried over into their private shrine rites, but we know that they did have private shrines in their homes, and not every house would have a Wab priest.
Festivals often included the god coming out of its home (the temple) and giving its direct presence to the people and providing direct oracles. At the same time, people had such things as rituals for seeking oracular dreams at holy places, and while there were priests trained in interpretation, the direct contact was between common worshipper and god without priestly intervention.
In more general terms, priestly or ministerial roles are historically things that are generally studied for and which may be full-time jobs. Some of the training will be more intensive in some areas than others -- I seem to recall that at the basic level of rabbinical training a person is qualified to perform weddings and the like, but hasn't accomplished enough skill to be considered able to handle questions of meat and milk.
Generally, people have been able to have their own connections with the divine at a variety of levels; the idea that the priest is the only one who gets to talk to the god, while it exists in antiquity, is not very common. The priests have been the ones tasked to maintaining the health of the boundary condition between the seen and unseen worlds (and in some societies, people who are thought to be on boundaries between dualities are preferentially selected for priestly roles: people who have mysteriously come back from the brink of death, the intersexed, or the transgendered); this is as important a job as bringing in food for the community or making sure that everyone has pottery. Not everyone can make bowls, but everyone needs to use bowls; not everyone can maintain the numinous, but everyone has access to it when it is maintained.
Now, bring this in to the history of Wicca. BTW is similar to a monastic community; the aspects of priesthood that require interaction with other humans are in interaction with other priests within the same community. All are working together in that space between seen and unseen ("space between the worlds" is the term for what's in a circle, isn't it?).
This terminology works all right within that structure. Then the written stuff gets turned loose on the world and we have Wiccans who aren't running within BTW-and-derived structures. Not all have a community, and not all have this sense of maintaining the space between the seen and the unseen. But many of them refer to themselves as 'priests', because 'Wiccan' was originally defined as 'priest' -- within that monastic context.
From:
no subject
My perception is it has to do with the idea that every wiccan considers themselves a priest unto themselves. Is that the gist of it?
What I was seeing as parallel to early christianity was the idea of apostolic succession. Early Christianity was, and roman still is,to an extent, a lineaged tradition. That was part of the petrine-pauline arguement, and also part of the refutation and denunciation of the gnostic sects. It's the same sentiment, to an extent, between btw and eclectisism. Of course that is how I tend to view it. Though this early clergy wasn't particularly intercessory, succesion was a determining factor for authority concerning doctrine.
"It's not the only way to worship or serve the gods, nor is it the only religious path worth following."
Oh I agree with this. We stress it in our own coven. We make it very clear there is no pressure to become "priest or priestess", in the full sense of those duties. We have coveners who are quite happy to just come for celebratory rites, or for guidance or counseling and and others who wish to go deeper.
From:
no subject
The priesthood hijack came about because I know of people who want to celebrate the Wheel of the Year, have duotheistic beliefs, and generally follow all the outer-court Wiccan practices that they can get their hands on, and avoid training/initiation because they don't want to take on the title of 'priest', don't want that level of responsibility or dedication. (I nearly was one for a while.) And I built my theories to encompass the existence of those people, and ran aground on the dogma of Anyone Who Interacts Directly With The Divine Is A Priest By Definition. (Even if they're among the folks that believes that 'priest' is only meaningful as a social role, position, or job descriptor.)
Which, of course, brings us straight back to the Reformation.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I tend to avoid those debates, mainly because they just churn water and never get anywhere.
From:
no subject
Early Wiccans--the lineaged, initiatory lines--called themselves a "priesthood." Which was fine, and accurate... but when asked "what makes them a priest if there's no laity to minister to?" They wound up answering, "because we speak to the Gods directly, and perform rituals for them"--leading to the idea that anyone who does these things, must be a priest.
Some parts got left out. They do minister... to each other; a coven serves as an interwoven pack of spiritual advisors & trainers. They don't just "perform rituals"--they perform them according to a specific set of doctrines and purposes. And they don't get to invent or change those doctrines & purposes; those are built into the religion.
One problem in modern [non-recon] paganism is there seems to be no space for the devout layperson... everyone's pushed to be either clergy or fluffbunny. Even among recons, I run across some of this... people who want to be devoutly religious but not gather a master's degree in historical study of their religion are often disparaged.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject