Talk:Christian Wicca

message: 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)
thread_title: Change name

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Needs content

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  my 2c 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Ambiguity 

message: 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)
thread_title:  To the Calvinistic editor from IP 71.124.* 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  not possible 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Actually I agree with removing that paragraph 

message: 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.
EDIT: Actually, the Golden Rule is almost universally accepted to be: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  --Preceding unsigned comment added by Vondraco (talk  o  contribs) 22:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  oops sorry about that i am new 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hmm 

message: "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)
thread_title:  some title of some kind 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Further thoughts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Balanced 

message: 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  o  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comments from Wiccan333 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Verifiable Credibility 

message: 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. Valhallaiac 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seriously? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Removing proposed deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title: many mistakes

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is this article so complicated? 

message: I have made a few changes which, hopefully, have improved the introduction.
First, I have changed: "Christian Wicca is a combination of Christianity and Wiccan, Pagan and/or other occult beliefs."
to: "Christian Wicca is a syncretism of Christian and Wiccan beliefs."
I think this modification was necessary simply because "Christian Wicca" is Christianity + Wicca.
For the same reason, I have also deleted "This combination of many types of religious knowledge may also include Jewish, Islamic, and other beliefs." This article should be about pure Christian Wicca, not about a more syncretistic system of beliefs. No extraneous elements of any kind should be added. The combination of Judaism and Wicca is often called Jewitchery (there is already an article dealing with it). Furthermore Christian Wicca and Muslim Wicca are different approaches. Some people mix Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Wiccan beliefs but this article is not about them.
I removed "The term occult is a Latin word meaning "secret", and is over 100 times in the Latin Vulgate of the Biblical Scriptures. Jesus himself shared occult knowledge with his disciples when he appeared to them after his resurrection in the upper room and showed them his wounded hands and feet. Thomas did not believe he actually appeared, so Christ re-appeared to him so he too would believe. From this event Thomas was dubbed Doubting Thomas, and Jesus promised a double blessing to those who would believe in his resurrection without seeing him personally." All this part was superfluous to define Christian Wicca.
I have also clarified the definition of Christian Wicca by adding these two sentences:
"Christian Wiccans adhere to the polytheistic nature religion known as Wicca and profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ."
"Christian Wicca is a particular denomination of the syncretistic system of beliefs known as Christo-paganism."
I also think we should create an article about Christo-paganism and include both the Christian Wicca article and the Christo-paganism article in a Christo-paganism category.
--PersonalAccount1977 12:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improvement of the introduction 

message: It is rather strange that the article in Wikipedia on Christo-paganism is considerably shorter than this one. Christian Wicca is not the whole of Christo-paganism - the latter term might refer to Christian Druids, for example. Perhaps some of this article could be merged with that on Christo-paganism, or alternatively, the latter article could be extended in length? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Christo-Paganism article is surprisingly shorter

message: I've deleted every part of this article that was not footnoted to highlight just how full of original research or unverified claims it is. Before restoring it please find reliable sources.  --Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.109.114.139 (talk) 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Notwithstanding the improperly made point, you are absolutely correct. This article is a mess and contains unsourced claims and original research. It's been tagged for refs and clean up for a while. You should feel free to remove unverified text. Try to use a scalpel, not a chain saw, and explain yourself in the edit summary. --Evb-wiki (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Massive Article Clean Up needed.

message: completely unsourced  --Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofrolvi (talk  o  contribs) 10:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undo edits by 70.241.98.104  

message: I've nominated this article for deletion because I don't believe the subject satisfies the general notability guideline.  In other words, I don't believe the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and so doesn't merit an article.
I did a search for sources prior to nominating it for deletion, and while there were plenty of Google hits on the phrase "Christian Wicca," there was a near total lack of anything that might qualify as a reliable source on the topic.  Most of the sources cited in the article that relate directly to the topic are quasi-essays from personal websites.  In fact, despite the number of hits, I found it hard even to confirm that any halfway-coherent set of beliefs or practices which might qualify as "Christian Wicca" actually exists.  If there is such a thing, you'd expect to be able to locate at least some reliable, third-party sources on it.  What I found instead were a lot of personal testimonials from people who evidently would like to combine some aspects of Wicca and Christianity they find congenial and compatible.
If anyone can find evidence of significant coverage of the topic in reliable secondary sources, please add references to the article -- and consider participating in the deletion discussion.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: i am 100 percent for deleting this article almost everything in it is unsourced and i cant find a single factual source to add or change anything we could probly cut out all the bs and end up with a few sentences but deletion seems like a better option--Ofrolvi (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The result was no consensus, though no sources were adduced that would establish that the topic satisfies the general notability guideline.  The article has had cleanup tags for original research and lack of sources and citations since last August, more than long enough to remedy those problems if there were any reasonable prospect of that happening.  I will attempt to find what sources I can, then remove all of the OR and unsourced claims, effectively returning the article to a stub, and then leave others to build a credible encyclopedia article using verifiable, reliable sources with inline citations.  --Rrburke(talk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominated for deletion 

message: I have removed everything in this article that was either original research or not attributed to a reliable source, which has meant removing everything except the lede -- and leaving only part of that.  I can't say with any confidence that even what is left is an accurate description of Christian Wicca, chiefly because I could not find a usable description of Christian Wicca in any reliable source.  Nevertheless, since the article is entitled Christian Wicca, it seemed reasonable to conclude that the topic must involve some combination of Wicca and the teachings of Jesus.  I deleted the remainder of the lede because it characterized Christian Wicca as a "denomination" within Christo-paganism, but offered no source to establish that Christian Wicca constitutes an identifiable denomination in the sense in which that term is customarily used.  The balance of the section drew on an essay by B.A. Robinson taken from religioustolerance.org.  Mr. Robinson is a prolific author of online essays (4,475 and counting) on his own website, religioustolerance.org; he is a retired engineer holding a Bachelor of Applied Science in Engineering Physics.  He is not an authority on Christian Wicca.  Like the other sources cited in the article, Mr. Robinson's essay could not be considered a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination.
I have made a good-faith search for reliable sources on this topic.  I found virtually none.  I have found plenty of blogs, personal web pages, online essays, along with copious denunciations of Wicca, Christian or otherwise, on Christian websites, but virtually no coverage in any reliable source independent of the subject.  I couldn't find any articles on the topic using Worldcat.  Nor could I find any books that would qualify as reliable sources.  The books cited as references for the article either did not mention Christian Wicca, did not constitute reliable sources, or else were by Sylvia Browne -- which I suppose is essentially the same thing plus comedy.  The sole volume apparently devoted to the topic -- Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition by Nancy Chandler Pittman -- was published by AuthorHouse (formerly 1stBooks).  In other words, it was self-published, and "self-published books... are largely not acceptable" as sources.  The most promising source in the article's list of references was Joanne Pearson's 2007 Wicca and the Christian Heritage, published by Routledge.  But this book -- which, please remember, is about Wicca and Christianity -- does not mention "Christian Wicca" even once, which speaks volumes.  I did find an entry for Christian Wicca on page 104-5 of The New Encyclopedia of the Occult by John Michael Greer.  I'm fairly dubious about both the publisher and the author (who claims no qualifications other than being a "Druid, a Freemason, a geomancer, a Cabalistic ceremonial magician and an ordained minister of a church with roots in traditional Louisiana hoodoo"), but considering the wasteland of sources on this topic, I'm happy to squint and call it reliable.
I note that during the deletion discussion some editors claimed that it would be easy to find reliable sources on the topic.  I wish they would do so -- with due regard to Wikipedia:Verifiability (especially the section Self-published sources), Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia: Reliable sources.  These claims were accompanied by perfunctory citations of hits from Google Books and Google Scholar, but on inspection these hits turned out to include works that were not even halfway reliable, many of which I had already seen.  Such claims also evidently counted as evidence works where the words "Christian" and "Wicca" simply happen to occur side-by-side, as in the phrase "pre-Christian Wicca" or the string "Christian, Wicca" -- which suggests that the person citing them hadn't even browsed their contents.
I would ask future contributors to please consider reviewing Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No Original Research and Wikipedia: Reliable sources prior to adding material to this article, because non-conforming additions will be removed.  At the very least have a look at Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.
--Rrburke(talk) 16:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a notability cleanup tag.  There is still no evidence that the subject satisfies the general notability guideline, which requests evidence that a "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" in order to determine whether it merits an article.  --Rrburke(talk) 20:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning article to [[WP:stub|stub]] status 

message: In its current unsatisfactory minimalistic form, this article is inadequate to explain something which both many Wiccans as well as many Christians will find self-contradictory and absurd... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is the total lack of reliable sources: since there aren't any, there isn't much to say about the topic.  Ideally the article should be deleted, but it's been AfD'd twice and the result was no consensus.  I wish those editors who are convinced that the topic is notable and that reliable sources on it exist would actually produce some.  I note that five months have passed since the last AfD and no one has produced a single reliable source on the topic.  --Rrburke(talk) 16:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 14 months and counting. -- Rrburke (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

text: Wicca and the Christian Heritage doesn't mention Christian Wicca.  Christian Wicca:The Trinitarian Tradition is self-published, and, as Wikipedia:Verifiability puts it, "self-published books... are largely not acceptable" as sources.  As for the websites, I have bothered to search. I have not found anything that approaches a reliable source. --Rrburke(talk) 17:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs more explanation

message: I would offer that the reason this page currently exists is due to the effort by some who label themselves as "Christian Wiccans" in order to make their views seem more acceptable or to lead them a form of credence. Neither Christianity nor Wiccan accepts the blending of the two religions. Also, the notion that this "religion" involves Wiccans who accept the teachings of Jesus is absurd. Wiccans also accept the teachings of Buddha and nearly every other religious figure of history yet we don't find anyone demanding they be called "Buddhist-Wiccans" or "Muslim-Wiccans". 
I hearby recommend this page be deleted ASAP.BoyintheMachine (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't have much to do with "offending" anyone (though by the way, many Wiccans would also think that the concept of "Christian Wicca"[sic] is self-contradictory and nonsensical), but rather to do with the fact that if the article can't be validly expanded beyond a single sentence, then there may not be much point to its continued existence... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request For Deletion 

message: Unlike BoyintheMachine I think we should keep this page. 
Why should a page be deleted just because christians feel offended. 
Telanus (talk) 09:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It really doesn't have much to do with "offending" anyone (though by the way, many Wiccans would also think that the concept of "Christian Wicca"[sic] is self-contradictory and nonsensical), but rather to do with the fact that if the article can't be validly expanded beyond a single sentence, then there may not be much point to its continued existence... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should keep and expand it 

message: OK, I have been bold and created a new page with a broader focus and I hope some better references. I will wait to see if it survives before setting up some inbound links.... Unless there is an instant successful deletion perhaps we could continue any discussion on the new article's  talk page? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: New article created