A Christian's Guide to Witchcraft and Wicca

On the whole, Wiccans tend to be polytheists. The Gods of the Witches can, and have, filled whole volumes in encyclopaedic listings. Not to mention the Goddesses too.  In our religious mindset there is no one God, but several.

This is a point of view that does have relevance in Christianity too:

• Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? (Exodus 15:11)
• Make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (Exodus 23:13)
• Thou shalt have none other gods before me. (Deuteronomy 5:7)
• For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. (10:17)
• And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. (1 Samuel 28:13)

Those are merely a small selection of Biblical references to other deities. The difference being that Christians are taught to ignore Them, or else consider Them false constructs of an ignorant people, while Wiccans may explore Their teachings too.

However, even amongst the multitude of divine masculine forces with whom we may work, there's no-one quite matching the description of Satan, other than the fallen angel Himself.

Popular depictions of the Devil's aspect may draw upon the archetypal images of Pan or Cernunnos, while the behavior of the Lords of Misrule or Loki might conceivably match that of Satan. But only at a stretch. There are parallels in figures like Gwyn ap Nudd, Hades or Pluto, as male sovereigns of the Underworld, but none of them are automatically figures of punishment.

There is no Wiccan God who fits this criteria:

• Sympathizes with the plight of humanity, locked out of the Afterworld, so much that He challenges the Father to let them in.
• Leads a rebellion against the Father, when the answer is no. Ends up getting kicked out of the Afterworld Himself.
• Tempts, guides or directs humanity into behavior deemed evil within the rules laid out by the Father.
• Switches viewpoint again, in order to punish people for precisely the same behavior that He exemplified while they were alive.

I understand that I've just over-simplified that theology terribly. But the point was to highlight the major attributes, in order to categorically state that there is no God - or Lord of the Host - quite like that in Pagan legends.

Witches do not worship Satan. He's not one of our Gods.

With half of Her face that of a stunningly beautiful woman, and the other half a skull, Hel has many parallels with the Christian demon Mazikeen. This is not coincidental. She's also found expression in the Germanic Frau Holle or Mother Hulda.

To the old people of Northern Europe, and modern day Heathens, Odinists et al, the phrase 'go to Hel' merely means to die. For the ancient nations especially, with their cultural emphasis on war, heroic fighting, territorial gains and bringing home the spoils of plunder, Hel awaited only the pacifists.

Do witches know that they're going to Hel for their practices and beliefs? That all depends upon whether they draw upon the Norse and Germanic legends within their spirituality.

There are some parallels here with Hell - as representing an undesirable Afterworld underscored by separation from the Glory - but the fiery pits of eternal pain don't feature anywhere.

Personally, I'm always grateful when Christians take it upon themselves to warn me about the perils of Hell. But only because I realize that, in their religious view, it's a much more terrible Fate. They're doing the spiritual equivalent of attempting to push me out of the way of an oncoming car. What's not to appreciate there?

But to fear Hell, as understood in Abrahamic faith, you first have to accept its reality as taught in the churches, synagogues and mosques. There really is no equivalent to that dread place in Paganism.

It often seems to be a source of surprise for the more unthinking Christians (we all have their ilk in our religious communities) that Wiccans can worship their same God.

The issue here is two-fold: a) Allah/Yahweh/Jehovah isn't viewed in isolation, as a single, almighty deity; and b) He might not be worshiped - or worked with - in quite the same manner that you do yourself.  But frankly, aren't both of those things true within the broader scope of Abrahamic denominations anyway?

Wiccans generally apply equal credence to all of the other aforementioned Gods too, but not at the exclusion of the Abrahamic deity.

In fact, Christian Wicca or Christian Witchcraft is one of the biggest growing denominations in Paganism. They seamlessly merge Wiccan practice with Christian theology without any apparent problem at all.

So no, witches do not hate God, nor Jesus Christ, nor Mother Mary (we largely see Her as the Mother Goddess anyway), nor any of the angels and saints.

This laughter is not directed at the Savior - not only could Jesus Christ Himself turn up in Wiccan ideology, but we have plenty of other Sacrificial Kings and Gods in our pantheons too. It's more about the lack of joined up thinking involved in utter outrage at the thought that Pagans might ritually sacrifice anyone or any being, while deifying the concept of a Christian Savior dying upon the Cross.

But most of all, the inner hilarity concerns sheer common sense.

If every witch out there was habitually taking daggers to victims at the altar, then we'd all be serial killers. There are hundreds of thousands of Wiccan practitioners out there. The death toll would be astronomical. Yet we're apparently all crafty enough never to have been caught.

There's the serious side to it too. Tabloid newspapers have infiltrated covens, or other ritual gatherings, in the hope of sensationally reporting upon the sacrificial practices. When they came away thwarted by the lack of any gore, they made stuff up.

Wiccans have had their children taken away from them. They've lost their jobs and had their marriages ruined.

A Wiccan friend of mine, living in the American Bible belt, once left her home to take her young son to kindergarten. They encountered a collection of dead wild animals, each with their throats cut, and messages daubed in blood upon the wall, 'Your Next!' (sic) and 'Witch Get Out!' It terrified her, traumatized her son and wasted a lot of police time in not ever finding the perpetrators. Nor did it have the desired effect in chasing them out of their home, though the grisly warnings occasionally still appeared.

All because of this misconception that our circles are stained with blood.

Throughout history, human and animal sacrifice has been a feature in most religions. Some still incorporate it - Voodoo springs to mind - while others have elements in symbolic gestures. The  Transubstantiation into the Blood and Body of Christ is a big example there.

This concept remains in Witchcraft and most other Pagan religions too. But as the latter.

We no more slaughter the High Priest at Lughnasadh, than Christians nail their priests to crucifixes each Good Friday.  We certainly don't kill babies, any more than Abraham did Isaac. I can't see any context, even historically, when virgin women (nor any female) would be ritually slain - our ancient traditions lean more towards male sacrifice.

Symbolism abounds, but never the reality. At the very least, it would countermand our Golden Rule of Harm None, and land a whole lot of us in jail.

I do have one funny story though, about a local practitioner of Ásatrú (a Norse Heathen religion), which did require an animal sacrifice as part of its rituals. The ancients probably did drive their knives into something alive and writhing, but modern day priests improvise.

This priest had his blade held high in the air, and was about to plunge it down onto his makeshift altar, hidden in the depths of a public park at night. Suddenly there was a loud cry of 'Stop! Police!' and constables emerged en masse from the shrubbery.

A passer-by had seen them entering the park. She'd noted the knife and seen something pink wrapped in the arms of a burly, bearded man. Assuming it was a baby, she'd called the police, and personally I'm glad that she did. Under that assumption, I would have too.

Thus the officers were there to interrupt the moment when the Ásatrú priest would have sacrificed a frozen chicken from Tesco. (With a spare stashed under the altar.)

It happened. I heard the story often from the priest involved, and giggled every time. Remembering that is part of the reason that I always smirk, when I'm asked if Pagans sacrifice animals.

It's my belief that human beings are fundamentally 'good' and 'bad' in equal measure, directed as much by the mores of their society and their own conscience, as by their religious grounding. As members of the human race, that includes witches too.

Wicca is an active religion, as differentiated by the passivity of religions like Christianity. By that I mean that Christians will attend church, hear a sermon, read their Bible and understand very clearly certain distinctions between right and wrong. They passively receive that teaching, then actively apply it in their daily lives.

On the other hand, Wiccans are encouraged by all to actively find their own pathways through life. No High Priest nor High Priestess handed me morality on a plate. I will challenge my own initiates in turn to explore their spirituality. There is no dogma, no central council issuing guidance and certainly no single book to delve into for answers.

Chief amongst the dogma, that we stubbornly refuse to admit that we have, is the Wiccan Rede. Better known to one and all as: An it harm none do what ye will.

This 'ancient' rede was adapted by Doreen Valiente in 1964, from Gerald Gardner's paraphrasing of a French literary character a few years before - Do what you like so long as you harm no one. (You've got to admit that Doreen's version sounds better.)

Both with knowledge and reference to Aleister Crowley's occult teachings from 1904, wherein the Rede was actually a kind of question: Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law? The reply being: Love is the law, love under will.

Which he had nicked from the 16th century writings of François Rabelais:

DO AS THOU WILT because men that are free, of gentle birth, well bred and at home in civilized company possess a natural instinct that inclines them to virtue and saves them from vice. This instinct they name their honor.

Incidentally, 'rede' is an Anglo-Saxon word meaning 'counsel'.  The Wiccan Rede is therefore extremely strong advice that none of us harm anyone nor anything, though we can otherwise apply our will to whatever we wish.

Do you know how restrictive 'harm none' is in reality? It seems so simply stated, but once you get into the implications of what's meant by 'harm' and who/what is encompassed by 'none', then it's an extremely wide-ranging umbrella of morality over all modern witches.

But how does that compare to the Ten Commandments?

One and two are habitually broken outright by the average Wiccan:

• You shall have no other Gods before me isn't acceptable in witchcraft, as the rest of our pantheons hold equal precedence.
• You shall not make for yourself a graven image - actually, I could probably get away with this, as I've never made one for myself.  I have graven images crafted by other people though. But my statue of Morrighan, face plaque of Morgan and twin set of the Green Man and Green Lady are only of the same ilk exhibited in the figurines of Mother Mary on show in my brother's household. Do they count?

As for three through to ten, they are all covered by the Wiccan consensus in our Rede - An' it Harm None. So yes, Wiccan morality ticks the boxes of eight (maybe nine) out of ten, when compared to the Commandments.

Hence proving again the insight of my friend's mother, in her kindly comment, "Well, as long as you have faith."

I do hope that this has answered the most common questions to the satisfaction of all. If you need further clarification, or any other queries, please do feel free to ask away. I will do my best to respond to all.

This was asked in the comment section, and referred to later too. Hence I realize that it was an important point missed out.  Here is how I answered it below, but with a few additions:

As for magic, the etymology there is very interesting. It ultimately comes from the Old Persian - to have power - via Ancient Greek - to be a member of the learned or priestly caste. This meaning is retained in Christianity too, when the Three Kings are sometimes alternatively called the Three Mages, or the Three Wise Men.

Magic is definitely dangerous. It means to have enough education to make up your own mind about things; and to use that freedom of information to influence events around you.

In modern terminology, the internet is a fabulous source of magic. People all over the world pool expertise, news and lived experience, providing a greater scope for understanding. This is magic in its purest sense. Then they may band together to enact change, whether it's raising money for the needy, petitioning government or solving mysteries through collective brainstorming.

We're performing magic right now. We're exchanging information. We've influenced our lives in that exchange, because that knowledge is accessible in all of our future dealings.

But back to the etymological evolution of magic.

By the time the Romans got hold of the word, it moved on to meaning those in charge of their own Fate or fortune. But the Fates and Fortuna meant very specific things to the Romans, dangerous things. Leading to the Late Medieval version of magic - fortune teller, those who can predict the future. A magician.

Stemming from this period we get another word to add to our list:

Sorcerer - (from the Latin Sortiarius) To be able to sort, arrange or line up, though in a very specific sense. The sorting in this sense refers to your lot in life, or your Fate etc. It's not precisely what you may think. Originally sorcerers (or sorters) were concerned with assigning status according to class; creed; color; race; parentage; wealth etc. They'd be sociologists now, or, at least, some kind of governmental administrator.

Naturally sorcerers could alter your life and affect your fortunes by changing your societal status. Which is the root of their later meaning - to tell fortunes. Then their role became all mixed up with magicians, so let's return there.

Meaning evolves. In the late 14th century, those practicing magic - those with learning, education and the knowledge to influence, manipulate or change the future - were deemed able to use hidden natural forces to create marvels. I think we'd call them scientists today, but magicians and alchemists they were then.

Only in Hollywood have practitioners of magic been able to stir their tea with their finger turning in the air. I mean, I can do a variation easily. But my finger would end up scalded.

Every time a witch shares his or her information, we are performing spells. I'm doing it right now in writing this article.  Every time you, or a member of your clergy, tells a parable from scriptures, or explains to someone why it's an amazing thing that Jesus died on the cross to save us, you are performing a spell.

But none of this appears to cover what springs to mind, when one imagines witches performing spells. Appearances can be deceptive.

Spellwork involves applying your will to enact a desired result. Forget right now that it also covers writing to your political representative to try and exert your wishes, or telephoning your doctor as you want an appointment this morning. They count, but they're all examples of when you can combine spells (telling your stories) with actions. You can do something about your situation.

There will always be times when nothing that we could do can affect the outcome. It's in the lap of the Gods. It's all down to the Fates. It's God's will.

So we tell deity our story. We recite our history in a holy context, or pass on information to our Gods in the hope of divine intervention. We plead, beseech, and beg for our desired result.

We pray.

That's all that spellwork really is, in the context so beloved of Hollywood. It's another word for prayer, only the deity at the other end might not necessarily be the same as in your church.