From: mimir@stein.u.washington.edu (Al Billings)
Subject: Re: updates please
Organization: The Friends of Loki Society
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 04:51:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.201546.604@sactoh0.sac.ca.us> jcl@sactoh0.sac.ca.us (John C. Laviolette) writes:
><1992Oct2.053723.996@u.washington.edu>
> 
>    Re: initiation into a tradition
> 
>    I noticed that you state that a Gardnerian (including yourself as an
>example) does not judge a self-initiated Wiccan as being "non-Wiccan," but
>only judges that person as not participating in the "power" of that
>initiatory lineage.

 Well, based on the fact that the message ID you are refering to is from
the university that I am at and because I said something like the above
recently, I assume you are "speaking" to me and not someone else. It helps
if you refer to someone by name though, in the future... 

 Yes, I am a Gardnerian initiate though whether I am a Gardnerian anymore
is sort of in the air... I can probably partially answer your question
though because I am around them somewhat.

>    This makes me want to relate a recent experience, and ask a question:
>         On another net, I discovered a person  --  not a Gardnerian,
>apparently, but he never specified his tradition  --  who claimed quite
>emphatically that a person was not Wiccan unless initiated by a legitimate
>Elder of Wicca.  Furthermore, he believes that these "legitimate Elders"
>are (of course) themselves initiated by legitimate Elders, and so on back
>into history in a true apostolic succession.  He specifically rejects the
>idea that modern Wicca was a turn-of-the-century revival based on an
>amalgam of surviving folk customs.  He also rejects any Wiccan tradition
>which acknowledges that it is a "new" tradition, and in fact rejects all
>"artificial" or "modern" religions as vile.
>    He has also emphatically stated that no one who hasn't been initiated
>into a "legitimate" lineage has any right to talk about what Wicca is or
>is not.
> 
>    Not being Wicca myself, all this would matter little to me, although I
>like to point out narrowminding thinking in an attempt to correct it.
>    However, after seeing your post, and realizing that this other person
>would probably acknowledge you as "properly initiated," this raises a
>question: just how many Gardnerians, Alexandrians, et al., agree with this
>extreme position?  How many believe that True Knowledge is the exclusive
>property of a few groups with ancient ancestory?  How many believe
>self-initiated solitaries are not Wiccan and have no right to claim real
>knowledge?

 Well, this person has what is, shall we say, an extreme position though
aspects or parts of it are not THAT uncommon. Most English Traditional
types (Gardnerians, Alexandarians, Kingstone, etc) do not have these views
in my experience. There are a few (fewer as time goes on though) who do
hold that if you don't have a valid initiation from a valid line, that you
are not a Witch. Most just won't share tradition materials with you if you
aren't an initiate of their tradition though some English Traditional
groups will share with OTHER English Traditionals, just not Eclectic or
self-initiated types. 

 Most ET's I know think self-initiation is valid. The Gods are the true
initiators. If you self-initiate and it works (examples of whether or not
it works can be argued back and forth), then they would not have a problem
with saying you are a Witch. You wouldn't be part of their tradition,
though, and wouldn't share in the power that is supposed to be inherent in
a working line that has been doing the rituals in a certain way for a long
number of years. The idea is that power builds up over time and you gain
access to the power of your lineage and its rituals by being a member,
being initiated, and practicing the specific rites of your line.

 Also, I know very few people that think Wicca pre-dates the 1930s.

Wassail,
Grendel
1st Degree (yes, only first!) Gardnerian, New York/Protean Line