Talk:Christian Wicca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.

Start

This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.

Low

This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

	This article is part of WikiProject Neopaganism, a WikiProject dedicated to expanding, organizing, verifying, and NPOVing articles related to neopagan religions. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article was nominated for deletion on August 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Change name

The article is more an article about the different ways to blend witchcraft with Christianity Not just blending Christianity with Pure Wiccan belife so I think the name of the entire article to Christian witchcraft --Antiedman (talk) 17:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needs content

This article seems to be bunk? Sam Spade 02:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems rather content-free to me as well. Not saying that there's no such thing as Christian Wicca, just that the article doesn't really say anything. Andjam 17:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What makes it bunk? I suspect some people do claim to practice Christian Wicca, but this certainly isn't a comprehensive description of it. I took a stab at Wikification, and a little copyediting, though I have no subject matter expertise. My guess is that for people familiar with Wicca, the discussion of various god and goddess worship practices will be interesting. The only content seems to be the stuff about reincarnation, and with nature/fertility worship. I removed references to "anonymous" and "Jonathon Crane" because there are no citations. I don't know if doing so have removed significant content. Petershank 21:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] my 2c

This article seems to portray a slightly negative attitude towards Christian Wicca, in my opinion. There was a note of scepticism in this article that I would not expect from a source (wikipedia) I have always found to be fairly neutral in tone.

As a Christian who also "practices the craft", I can verify this 'religion' most definitely exists. However, it is actually hard to pin down one set of beliefs or a particular beliefs structure as there many approaches to Christian Wicca. There are Pagans who decide to embrace Christ's teachings, and then there are Christians who begin to practice pagan style rituals (more commonly called "Christo-eclectics").

So actually, I didn't think this article on Christian Wicca was particularly helpful, and would recommend more material is added to the article, or more sources quoted at the very list.

Part of the reason for that is the relative lack of acceptance from either the Christian or Wiccan communities: it's difficult in the extreme for a Christian Wiccan or Christo-Pagan to publically practice in a community of like-minded people, because there is relatively little acceptance or acknowledgement of the validity of such a path. Conversely, it's been my (entirely anecdotal) experience that many Christo-Pagans don't last too long in the light of that social pressure.

So the article is ... not the best. However, you could take that as a challenge to expand and improve the article. (hint ... hint ... hint ... :D) Hey, if nothing else, that would mean that the next person who comes along to get such information won't be as dissappointed. Justin Eiler 04:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we have some more cites, please, to show that this is not a wind-up? -- Karada 20:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Karada. That's going to be a bit difficult--most of the information about Christian Wicca (or other forms of Christo-Paganism) is still experimental in nature, highly subjective, and written by either practitioners or critics. It's hard to get good, scholarly citations for anything when that's all the material that's available to work with. Justin Eiler 03:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Justin. That could be a bit of a problem: please see Wikipedia:Verifiability. At the very least, we should have some attribution to the sources of the information given, even if they are not scholarly. -- Karada 20:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely--I'm running into the same problem with Universal Eclectic Wicca, and I have to be very careful there, as I am an (inactive) member of UEW. The problem is there is a need for this information ... just little or nothing in the way of reliable sources for it, which leaves us in the position of having a less-than-informative stub, or more informative articles that don't exactly match verifiability. Justin Eiler 00:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguity

"Some have argued that the claim that prayer is witchcraft also denies certain elements of the Christian God, making it seem as if He can be controlled (as witchcraft is a form of controlling one's destiny). The traditional Christian believes that God is Soverign over man, and not vice versa. This is particularly true of Calvinistic Churches, but is true to some extent for all Christians."

This last scentence is problematic. What does the pronoun "This" refer to? Noncalvinist Protestants holding to the belief that god is sovereign over man, or to the claim that some christians have argued against wicca for making it seem as if god is controlled by man?

Clarification would be helpful. --Ollie Garkey 11:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To the Calvinistic editor from IP 71.124.*

Dear Sir: I find your edits to be heavily biased in favor of a particular interpretation of Christian belief. Wikipedia adheres to a strict neutral point of view policy. This means that articles should be descriptive whenever possible. If you wish to question the beliefs of Christian Wiccans, you should do so in the article section labeled for that purpose. Please do not continue to make your edits without regard to the opinions of others. If you wish to discuss these matters, feel free to register and make your complaints known. Otherwise, repeated attempts to impose your beliefs on others may be considered vandalism and treated as such. Alba 02:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] not possible

Sorry, but it's just not possible to be neutral in anything with this subject.

i can see how you would want to edit it. But you're making a false assumption that your own edits are unbiased. Excuse me, but that's the entire reason i started to edit; you used the page as a recruiting station. The only thing i did was switch it to a recruiting station for a different religion, if that's what i managed to even do at all.

This whole conversation is screwed up. There is no way to follow both the Christian belief and the Wiccan belief because they are entirely different. A christian is a christian and a wiccan is a wiccan, christian are not to do any type of witchcraft at all. Its against christian doctrine. We dont need magic, all we need is the heavenly father, who despises and turns his back on witchcraft. I dont believe that god accepts anyone who accepts him and practices witchcraft, because no witchcraft is from him! It is all from the devil. Therefore when you claim wicca you claim satan as your God! End of story! It is not acceptible to mix them, you cannot comprimise them, Your either with christians or against them, there is no middle ground, Christian or satanist are your choices, choose wisely!

Your comment was deleted; I undeleted it under Voltaire's rule ("I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.") Your beliefs regarding incompatability have origins in the shifting meanings of words over the centuries, as well as the belief (which not all Christians share) that anything not perceived as directly coming from the Godhead (as opposed to via angelic delivery) is by definition coming from Satan -- as if diversity is a creation of devils, a highly problematic stance. I would also advise you that you can attract flies better with honey than vinegar, and that if your goal is to win over people (rather than prideful self-aggrandizement through jeremiads) your methods are flawed. I recommend prayer and meditation after reading 1 Corinthians 12, and reflection on Oliver Cromwell's statement of faith: "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: think it possible you might be mistaken." Alba 03:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two religions which are riddled with contradictions come together and the combined religion is impossible because it's contradictory? We can't see the contradictions in our own dogma because it takes considerable effort to ignore and/or accommodate them. It's much easier to just assume we are correct and use our thereby-flawless position to correct the dogmatic flaws of others. *wink* TheTyrant 21:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)TheTyrant

[edit] sorry

Sorry, i won't register for anything because i don't come here very often & avoid it when i can. So i'd just be taking up space on this site for no reason. But if you don't like talking to me as a number then call me "Jane".

i agree about the "edit war", as you put it. However you say,

"This is supposed to be a factual article, where we report on what people say they believe and then what other people believe about what they say they believe. That's the way the article is structured"

No, you report on what they believe in an unbiased manner, then maybe refute it, but you don't say such things as this:

"For those raised in a Christian background and who wish to retain their Christian faith, but who accept the Wiccan belief system at the same time, Christian Wicca may seem to be an acceptable compromise. Likewise, some Pagans who seek to convert to faith in Jesus Christ and yet wish to remain active in Wicca may choose this option."

This isn't a statement of what they believe, its a recruitment offer. It belongs on a pamphlet handed out at an airport, not in a "factual" article.

Again, it's impossible to be neutral about this. If you can manage a neutral article, i would be impressed.

[edit] Actually I agree with removing that paragraph

So as you see, discussion is less than futile here. I continue to believe that neutrality is not impossible. Alba 19:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] oops sorry about that i am new

i think that paragraph is the only reason i started this in the first place.

But of course, after i edited it someone else came there & started their own wackiness.

For example, starting at the beginning. It starts with:

"Christian Witches may follow the Wiccan Rede and/or the traditional Golden Rule, as appears in the Bible."

However these are not the same, but it implies they are. The wiccan rede is "Harm none, do as thou wilt"; the Golden Rule is "Love thy neighbor as thyself". Nowhere in the Golden Rule does it give freedom to do whatever you want. In fact, it might even mean you need to NOT do as you want. Likewise, the wiccan rede says "don't harm"--yet the Golden Rule might possibly allow FOR harm.

This is one of many. There are two sections entitled "Criticism from other Wiccans" and "Criticism from other Christians". Sorry, but if this is their refutement, then shouldn't it be from their point of view? In both of these group's eyes "Christian Wicca" is not an extension of their religion; it is a different religion.

It is the little things that create bias.

[edit] Hmm

I don't see how "and/or" implies identity, nor do I see that it is impossible to follow both philosophies simultaneously -- one could be bound differently by different prescriptions in different contexts. I agree with you that the two statements are not identical, but that doesn't imply, as your preferred text says, that they are mutually exclusive.

Perhaps "traditional Wiccans" and "traditional Christians" would be an appropriate descriptor? It would certainly be accurate... Alba 19:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some title of some kind

"Traditional" might be a way to get around that, but it still implies some sameness. That's why i just said "Christians" and "Wicca".

True one could be "bound differently by different prescriptions in different contexts", for they have some things in common, but they are also in contradiction. Wicca: "harm none." If you harm someone, you have broken it. There is no way around that; it is declaring, simple, straightforward.

Christians are told only "love thy neighbor". In order to love their neighbor, they might have to harm them. I.e., a nurse often has to administer a shot. That's harm. But it is acceptable, because it is out of love. Another example would be if a Christian's child was doing something dangerous, but willingly and happily doing it. If that's the case, then the Golden Rule says that the Christian MUST harm that child, give it a spanking, or put it in the corner, in order to love.

If it is "bound differently by different prescriptions in different contexts", maybe say something to that extent in there or something (but i wouldn't recommend those exact words because they are rather lengthy).

I'm sorry, but the Rede is not so extreme that you must harm none. I really think some people need to look up more information on the Rede. You cannot go about you life harming nothing, but there is a different beteen intentional harm, unintentional, and needed harm. Disinclination 08:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Further thoughts

I think it looks fairly balanced now (i.e. there is just as much criticism from the Wiccan point of view as there is from the Christian one, and there is a certain amount of positive info about Christian Wicca, and lots of neutral-sounding stuff).

I added a philosophical objection to the list of Wiccan objections, and changed the last two headings to "for" and "against" (the way it was worded sounded like there were two branches of Wicca, one which was pro-Christian and one which was anti-Christian).

I can see how, if you lived in the Bible Belt or somewhere, it might feel safer to be a Christian Wiccan than a Pagan Wiccan.

Also, in various magical writings and conversations, I have seen and heard prayer defined as "passive magic" and spells as "active magic" - I think I may make an edit to that effect if I can work it in effectively. --yewtree 15:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Balanced

After reading this, I don't see why the dispute banner is still posted. This seems very well balanced and gives a clear description, throughout, on what the religion believes and practices in it's many forms and why it's detractors disagree to each point.

Looks excellent right now. Don't let my screen name fool you on my POV, I'm viewing this as an atheist. I came looking to compile a sampling of blurbs on various religions for a project and I have learned a lot. --Jade 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unbalanced

I'm going to be editing this article for a while. It's riddled with inaccuracies. Nature worship is NOT a facet of Wicca, it is a fertility religion.

Perhaps the quality of the article is indicative of the fallicies behind Christian Wicca?Eshmasesh 14:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I just removed the two original links under the "Against Christian Wicca" list. The first was broken, the second stated that all wiccans worshipped satan. The new link I provided is much better.

Should we mention in the "Criticisms from Wiccans" section that Wicca has a specific pair of deities, and that worhipping deities other than the Lord and Lady of the Isles is not consistent with Wiccan theology? Maybe that could be tied to the point on "maintaining Christian beliefs". Sistema Sepiroticum

Should we also begin to mention the various differences in diety worshop between the two seperate religions? Christianity, being monotheistic, and Wicca, being ditheistic, cannot coexist in any sort of way. Not to mention that christianity doesn't seem to take kindly to any sort of magical ritual whatsoever and that Wicca is an offshoot of ceremonial magic.Sovereign of Darkness

One could argue that. However, wiccan witchcraft actually takes much of its practice from Christian ceremonial magic, so criticising it from that standpoint is iffy (if I can find a source for it, I'll bring it up)Eshmasesh 00:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'll concede the magic point, but not the diety one. Exodus 20:3 as part of the 10 commandment's states "You shall have no other god before me." There's pretty much no way around that, unless under the new covenant Jesus said that you could worshop any amount and any type of diety and get away with it. I'll look for anything in Wiccan texts that states that tertiary God's are exceptable. Sovereign of Darkness
  - I wasn't actually defending the credibility of Christian Wicca, just saying that magic is a moot point ^^;; I'm the one who posted the external link "The problem with Christian Wicca" in the article.

A tertiary is not acceptable. The core doctrine of divinity in Wicca is Male Horned God/Female triple Goddess which represent the balance of the universe. Unless there's some hidden third gender I don't know about, I don't see how it could work.

...in any case, Christianity rejects the idea that the Father/Son/Holy Spirit are three separate entities unless you're talking about gnostic texts, which are a heresy. At the very least, if someone follows this they shouldn't refer to themselves as "Christian" "Wiccans". Maybe the Religion Manglers United.Eshmasesh 15:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Triple Goddess was first introduced from a work of fiction. As such, it is not considered to be 'traditional' in the most sense, although it can fit in. Same goes for the Horned God. But like someone said before, you cannot work around "no other god before me". Disinclination 05:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re-rebuttals

Hoo boy. Let's see if I can answer all this...

1) I would think you would find it hard to find people who don't think Wicca has anything to do with nature. Maybe you think of it as the fertility OF nature but it's nature-based.

2) "No other gods before me": which meant that the Jewish YHWH / Adonai / Elohim was the chief god and to be worshipped above all others... because all others were not gods in their own right, but His/Her/Its/whatever's creations. (It is difficult to properly refer to the Divine as meant in Judaism and Christianity with the gender and number-implying pronouns of English. God encompasses male and female and neuter, as well as singular and plural.) That didn't mean they didn't exist, and the strictness of the prohibition against dealing with them was a later invention of priests involved in dominance struggles... a matter well detailed in the Old Testament, if you read carefully.

3) There is no third gender necessary to square the circle of the Wiccan duality and the Christian trinity. This is another matter well worked out in Jewish and Christian mysticism, where Jesus can be viewed as encompassing male and female, or having a female partner such as Mary Magdalene (the choice of Gnostics), or that Jesus' female counterpart is the Christian Church (echoing the Holy Spirit's relationship to the Creator).

4) It is also true that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three faces of the same entity. However, isn't it also the case that the Lord and Lady are inseperable halves of a whole, that the one cannot function or even exist without the other?

I don't ask that you accept these premises, for I'm not entirely certain of them either. I just ask that you see that they are legitimate belief complexes that hold up under casual scrutiny. Alba 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it's a respectable belief system. Believe whatever you want. It's just neither Christian nor Wiccan, and is misleading to call it such.

1) No, Wicca is a fertility cult. It has nothing to do with worshipping nature, UNLESS the practitioner feels that it is appropriate. There is no wiccan credo which says "you must worship nature". Maybe balance and harmony which exists in nature, but it exists everywhere anyway. If you need me to require evidence (sources), then I will.

2)Christians do not follow the Old Testament. Jews do. Christians follow the New Testament. But, you're right; it doesn't mean that they don't exist. HOWEVER, admitting that other gods exist does NOT mean the Christian God doesn't mind if you worship them. "Thou shall have no other Gods before me".

3)Mary Magdalene, as I already posted in the article under criticisms, was human. Not a god. Worshipping her directly contradicts Christian theology. There is nothing Christian about worshipping Mary Magdalene. In any case, there is only one God in Christianity, and two in Wicca. Combine their ideas together into one huge super-religion if you wish, just don't call it Christian or Wiccan since it is a totally different religious idealogy.

4)Irrelevant. They're still two distinguishable, separate entities.

Worship whatever you want. I don't have a problem with it. Just don't call it Christian or Wiccan. I already suggested the Religion Manglers United, an appropriate title for the people who mash different religious credos together and say "close enough".Eshmasesh 15:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

More on point 2: To claim that "no other gods before me" was used to mean "worship no other god higher than me" is debating theology in English. Problem? The passage was written in Hebrew. The word used for "before" translates either as "in the presence of" or "chronologically preceding". Since "chronologically preceding" makes no sense in this context, the passage translates more accurately as "Thou shalt worship no other gods in my presence". Sistema Sepiroticum 03:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On point Three 3: I have not ever Once, not ONCE come accross any Gnostic text that asserted Mary Magdalene as the Sophia. Infact, having her as such denys one of the key factors in the Sophia Myth. The rescue and return of Sophia to the Fullness. As well, to add: I can not see at all how so called "Christian Wicca" works when includeing the Gnostic Sophia. To Acknowledge the Sophia one must then as well Aknowledge the Parent entity and The Christ Figure. The Christ and the Sophia are dual. yes. What happens to the Demiurge and his 365 archons? That kinda throws a mokney wrench in the whole Cosmology(if it is to stick to Wicca's Radical Dualism)

~ Rookherst (to lazy to log in) Friday December 15. 1:45 eastern.

[edit] Comments from Wiccan333

You know what!Whoever wrote the comments above should be ashamed. Wicca is a religion where we accept everyone and everyones religion and for you Wiccans to judge a Christian Wiccan is wrong and you are breaking the rules of your own religion.In Wicca we do not judge anyone by the religion they are or the beliefs they have, and yes Christian and Wiccan beliefs do clash in different aspects, but you have now right to judge, unless you are not a true wiccan! Also one more thing to add, Wiccans have the right to few the Goddess and God in any form they would like, so the next time you write something bad about another religion, why don't you read the most basic Wiccan rules!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiccan333 (talk • contribs)

I am absolutely unashamed of everything I said. I don't remember any credo in Wicca which states that a person is required to be so openminded that their brain falls out, like you. Instead of screaming about how badly I'm persecuting such innocent beliefs, you should evaluate my entirely valid critiques and then actually RESPOND to them. Why don't *you* research Wicca somewhere not specifically directed at fluffies? Eshmasesh 03:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, Wiccan. Comments on the article are best placed on the talk page of the article, rather than the article itself. That way concerns can be addressed in a clear manner. Thanks. :) Justin Eiler 04:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to point something out. As a long practicing Wiccan, I was incredibly offended by the remarks of the obviously Christian person several posts above who makes the claim that witchcraft comes from the devil. One of the most basic rules to Wicca is "to give evil a name is to give it power". Therefore, true Wiccans do not believe in a devil or a hell that bad people are sent to. To explain the idea of afterlife that we believe in would take up quite a bit of space, and I am not trying to sway anyone to my beliefs. I respect all religions and all people, and I do have an open mind to new people and beliefs. However, my mind is not so open that my brain is going to fall out. I have been persecuted for my unorthodox beliefs, losing friends over it because I did not want to convert to their religion. Eshmasesh, I agree with you completely, however, there is not a set number of deities to worship in modern Wicca. The God and the Goddess are very important, but there is also the All (or Spirit). Worshipping nature is a common facet of many Wiccan branches in modern times, as is the belief that true balance can only be achieved by nature. As for the multiple deities, Wicca is a polytheistic religion, and there are many branches to choose from. In branches such as Khemetic (Egyptian Wicca) and Alexandrian (Greek) Wicca, you can devote an entire ritual to one specific God, like Aphrodite or Horus, or encompass several. The choice is entirely up to the worshipper. I know that there are teenagers who dress in all black and lots of jewelry and proclaim themselves to be witches, but they are nothing of the sort. This is not saying that witches don't dress in black and wear jewelry, some may. But Wicca as a religion, not a fad, requires hard work and dedication. I look forward to the day that Wicca and all Pagan religions are as widely accepted as Christianity, but I am not holding my breath. I just ask that Christians try to practice open-mindedness as much as they preach it. The world would be a better place if more people were open-minded.

EDIT: This is a website where Wicca is described as accurately as any other description. Many of you should try reading it. http://www.wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm

209.74.30.231 00:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC) Wiccan Woman, December 23, 2006 (Happy Yule to all the Wiccans, and Merry Christmas to all the Christians!)

Some counterpoints:
- The 161 Laws point out that anyone who breaks their oaths of secrecy is condemned to the Christian Hell. While there may not be a concept of a "bad afterlife" for Wiccans who keep their oaths, to say that Wiccans don't believe in Hell is disingenuous at best, and horribly false at worst.
- Your claim that there are no set deities in Wicca smacks of reading bad authorities such as Cunningham, Starhawk, Grimassi, and/or Ravenwolf. Wicca as founded by Gerald Gardner has two deities with specific names.
- I'd love to get the opinion of a Khemet on the mangling of their theology into ostensibly-Wiccan dogma. I'm not sure it can even be justified.
- Your mention of Alexandrian Wicca as "Greek" is laughable and shows a complete lack of knowledge of the history of the Alexandrian Tradition of Wicca. They don't worship Greek gods; they're named after the library of Alexandria because of Alex and Maxine Sanders' desire to expand the practice of Wicca to other schools of magic. It was Stewart Farrar who suggested the name "Alexandrian"; it had nothing to do with changing the deities.
- The website you linked to is similarly hilarious - they speak of Cunningham as an authority on Wicca, when he was only a first-degree initiate. I would suggest you find some better sources. Good luck finding someone willing to break their oaths; much of the reality of Wicca is oathbound - that which has been published is either outer-court knowledge or fake.

Sistema Sepiroticum 20:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Followers

Is there any example of well-known christian wiccans? 201.74.191.181 11:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think one can safely say that "Christian Wicca The Trinitarian Tradition" (Paperback) by Nancy Chandler Pittman, which is cited on Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Wicca-Nancy-Chandler-Pittman/dp/1410753476/sr=8-1/qid=1171034605/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-9609258-6554269?ie=UTF8&s=books comes close to being public!

Not quite as close, Elisabeth Moltmann-Wendell devotes a whole chapter of "A Land Flowing with Milk and Honey" to "The Forgotten Goddess".

[edit] Factual Accuracy

Unless someone can present a reason why the factual accuracies of criticisms from christianity are "disputed", it will not be there. Oh, and I love how the sites that criticized Christian Wicca were removed, I'll be putting them back now.

Also, I deleted two URLs from the source list. AOL sites made by a single person with no verifiable credibility are NOT reliable sources of information. The White Magic page had nothing to do with Christian Wicca, not to mention that the idea of "White Magic" is stupid. Eshmasesh 18:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to note that in the section "Concept of Evil" the writer uses the Devil and Lucifer interchangeably, which are two separate entities, one is the Devil, the other one is a Babylonian King in the OT.

On a side note, it needs proper spacing, breaks, and the like. SirDigibyter 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiable Credibility

1) I'd like details of what constitutes "verifiable credibility". It is true that anyone can set up a site and put stuff on it, but so can anyone post material onto other sites such as Witchvox, for example. Can I make a few comments:

a) I have been investigating the French records of the Witch Trials in Jersey, and clearly reading associated material. There is a lot of nonsense on Wiccan sites about "burning times", and "old religion" with preposterous statistics, mostly repeated parrot fashion from a source that clearly goes back to Margaret Murray, and not to documented texts. There are many sites, and they are consistent, so should this be taken as "verifiable credibility" for at least the fact that many Wiccans believe this (regardless of its accuracy)? That something is widely believed is I think important to note, even if it is a belief unsubstantiated by the evidence.

b) Most of Christian Wicca is net based, and very little written material exists as yet. Clearly it is not as popular and saleable in bookshops as the variety of material of varying quality that passes as Wicca. But it still has the same problem as Wicca, in that it is quite diverse, and any study should make that clear. I think that some of the references regarding it should show this diversity, and the article should be better cross referenced to internet sites in that regard.

c) There is a common form, in that all the forms try to produce a synchretism of Christianity and Wicca. I think sites which reflect that well at an intellectual level, even if they are the work of one person, demonstrate that person is working within the tradition, and are acceptable insofar as they provide arguments for Christian Wicca not seen elsewhere.

Lastly, by way of balance, I've added a Witchvox article in favour of Christian Wicca, to balance that against, so that it can be seen that Witchvox is open to both opinions. --TonyinJersey 22:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seriously?

This article cites zero sources. Wicca isn't Christian, it's a totally different religion. While some Christians (and Satanists, who are "opposite" but still in the same paradigm) practice magical techniques that could be considered "Witchcraft", that is not the same as being Wiccan. The whole existence of so-called "Christian Wiccans" depends on a basic lack of understanding of either religion. While there may be a few people out there who call themselves "Christian Wiccans", I really doubt there are enough of them to merit a Verifiable WP article. Valhalla^iac 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

After about 15 seconds of searching I was able to find a published book on this religion (with 33 Amazon reviews, so SOMEONE must be reading it) and a website with a lot of links to other "Christian Wicca" websites. This leads me to conclude that there are people who call their set of religious beliefs "Christian Wicca." Whether it is possible to fully source this article properly, or to keep if free of POV, I don't know. But this does appear to be a religion. Crypticfirefly 05:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Another observation and reason not to delete this article now is that as of March 25, 2007 this article had an extensive bibliography which was later removed by User:Alba apparently by mistake as part of removing the material under the heading "Neo Gnostic Jewish Christain/Angelic Magic." An easy first step would be to restore the bibliography. Crypticfirefly 05:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

--TonyinJersey 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)--TonyinJersey 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing proposed deletion

This article was proposed for deletion due to being unsourced, and containing original research. While it appears that reliable sources are not readily available on this topic (indeed, I had never heard of it before spotting this article in the proposed deletion list), there does appear to be at least one published book on the subject and there do appear to be people who identify themselves as "Christian Wiccans." Therefore, I believe that cleanup is possible. As it was only tagged to remove original research on May 13 (less than one month ago) and to add sources since May 2 (just over one month ago), I would give the editors working on it a bit longer to fix it up. Footnotes should be added, for example, and it does need quite a bit of tightening up. But I think there is enough here that it shouldn't be deleted without an actual Articles for deletion discussion. My 2 cents. Crypticfirefly 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a further comment to the editors of this article-- you really need to edit the heck out of this thing, and USE FOOTNOTES to other sources. Crypticfirefly 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at footnoting to sources; in the meantime, I've reinstated bibliographical data and external sources; frankly, this site has been really messed around; I tracked down bibliographic references, put them in, these were removed, then the site was flagged for lack of sources! The site certainly needs a huge amount of tightening up, and I think part of the reason is that some contributors are more interested in scoring points than documenting facts. --TonyinJersey 06:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this looks much better. The reason I suggest the footnoting is that this article looks like it is prone to being edited by well-meaning folks who, unfortunately, are adding what might be described as original research (or personal gnosis). Footnoting might help prevent that, or at least to make it easier to weed out the original research as it creeps in. Crypticfirefly 02:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This page needs reseach and cleanup. However Deletion is absurd, as the topic has encyclopedic content, and does not meet, to my knowledge meet any of the rules for deletion.Sephiroth storm 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dunno. Is 'utter nonsense' a criteria for deletion'? Wikipedia editors at their most gullible are the ones caring about this article. Verifiability went out the window when this one was not deemed deletable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] many mistakes

too long. i know all in it is wrong without reading it. There is no proper paragraph division, if any. the only thing i read is the sacred texts thing at the end, and it's wrong because the qabalah can't be read, because it isn't a book! it is some kind of branch of hebrew esoteric philosophy. It's like if I said that my sacred book is gnosticism. duh. maybe this guy meant the zohar, which is the most important qabalistic text. sorry I don't know how this talk page thing works, but if I did something wrong with this comment, I'm sorry dudes. Alejandro —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.156.15.78 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is this article so complicated?

I came to this page hoping to learn something about it. All I found was noise.

Christo-Paganism isn't an organized enough of a movement for the article to have this detailed of a theoretical discussion. If there were verifiable sources, you could draw the theoretical stuff from there. But short of that, all this theologizing is just speculation based on what people think Christo-Paganism should be, not what it is in the real world. If people want to have that sort of discussion, they don't come to a reference site.

Are there any sources that detail the practices and beliefs of actual Christo-Pagans? If so, build the article from that. If not, then Christo-Paganism is likely just a catchy term that a few people use on an individual basis here and there. At least, by Wikipedia standards. And if that's the case, the article should be just two or three paragraphs.

On Moltmann-Wendell and the like: Just because a Christian theologian talks about goddess doesn't make them a Christo-Pagan. If you want to make claims like that, you have to find place where they call themselves Christo-Pagan. Or, if you have a place where someone else calls them a Christo-Pagan, then you can say that so-and-so called them that. --Chutney 22:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had this article on my watchlist for ages, being heavily involved in editing Wicca, but have despaired of doing anything much here. But I agree with you, it is confusing and over-large, given the very thin sources on which it relies. Personally, I'd support anyone who was bold enough to take a scalpel to the article, cut it down to one third of its current size and remove all the speculation. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Chutney makes a radical suggestion above: cut this article down to only those paragraphs that are supported by some sort of references. Given the recent spate of huge, undigested additions to the article I'm inclined to think that this is a good idea. Why try tinkering with this when it's as bloated and unstructured as it is: why not strip it back to a sound foundation and build from there? I'll leave this question for a day or two, and if no-one comes back with a decent 'why not' that's just what I'll make a start at. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've taken an axe to it and cut it to a little over 10% of its previous length. I didn't realise just how much essay style stuff was there with no references. Personally, I think it needs even more cutting as the stuff that's left is barely referenced.... But I didn't want to completely destroy it as an article. If people can add references to what's left, that would be great. Maybe Jo Perason's new book will help? (Added to references list). Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 10:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)