UPG - Unverified Personal Gnosis

 

 

One of the most controversial topics in the arena of Witchcraft, Paganism, or other forms of Occultism is the consideration of unverified personal gnosis, or UPG. This term is defined as a vision, insight or paranormal experience which an individual experiences that is used to develop or support certain beliefs or practices without any corroborative evidence. Of course, such a definition would pretty much define a lot of the beliefs, theology and practices of most religions, occultism and magic. It would seem that the sources for practically everything that is spiritual or magical in the world was at some point originally based on unsupported or unverifiable allegations.

Science cannot prove most of the tenets of religion, metaphysics, spirituality or the occult, so that would be the ultimate kind of verification, and in most cases, it is unavailable. However, there are other forms of verification including the participation of groups or even communities of individuals engaged with a specific religion, metaphysical teaching, or occult tradition. A certain degree of objectivity can occur when groups of people have similar experiences while undergoing an extraordinary spiritual occurrence. Additionally, a form of verification can be derived if an experience agrees with written texts, sacred writings or agreed upon tenets or theology, particularly if that agreement is with doctrines that have an historical provenance. I believe that these kinds of verification are the only kinds that are available to Witches, Pagans, magicians and occultists. Does a particular experience, derived belief or visionary insight agree with what is written or accepted as a fact in a spiritual or magical context? If it doesn’t, then it is unverified.

Now, I am not saying that something has to be verified in order to be considered legitimate, since a profound personal experience is certainly authentic. However, because it is something that someone actually experienced, it should be accepted as a truth, but only narrowly within the context of that experience. If an experience such as this is later found to be backed up by something in print or discovered to be unknowingly shared by others then that experience can be cautiously put forward as a verified and supported experience. If it gets adopted by other practitioners then it slowly evolves into an article of accepted practice or doctrine. The reason why I am saying the words “cautiously” and “slowly” when talking about a vision, experience or insight becoming an accepted part of a practice is because it needs to be vetted by more than a few or just one individual before it can be considered verified. This is where authentic experience meets legitimacy within a given tradition or practice.

There is a balance between an idea or a vision in getting slowly accepted as opposed to taking everything at face value and assuming that it is legitimate simply because it is accompanied by a powerful emotional experience. This is a problem in our Witchcraft community, and I suspect that it is a problem in other occult and esoteric communities as well. For Witches, our creative endeavors have shaped what we are practicing, particularly because it is an underdeveloped religious and magical tradition. We need visions, inspirations, new ideas and new practices, but not just anything will work. There has to be some kind of validation process as well, whether that is by community consensus or by some kind of corroborative textual proof. However, some do not agree, and this has led to all sorts of half-baked and even crazy beliefs and practices being shared as truths around the various communities.

Examples of this kind of spurious activity abound, but I refuse to point them out and name any names. Instead I will use myself as an example. When I first started out on my magical path I had developed out of my fevered dreams a system of magic that I believed was the visionary and inspired Atlantean beliefs and practices, long forgotten but now fully realized. I have reams of barely legible writings with all of these types of simple magical operations cobbled together from various sources, primarily Egyptian with a lot of imaginings sandwiched between. It had no relation to anything that was being practiced, either at that time (1970's) or even previously in antiquity. It was based wholly on my creative inventiveness and visions that I had at the time.

I fervently believed in the veracity of this Atlantean magic, at least for a few years, until I found actual occult writings that seem much more interesting and realistic to me. The imaginary Atlantean system of magic was abandoned for the real thing. Still, I would have sworn up and down at the time that I had received these visions from a past life when I was an Atlantean high priest and magician. Looking at them now, they are laughably slim on actual useable occult lore and yet full of hyperbole and visionary excess. I quickly and quietly outgrew my obsession with Atlantis and my supposed past lives, and continued to grow and develop my personal system of magic based on sound occult lore and experimentation.

However, could you imagine what I would be like today if I had persisted in that belief and developed my magic in that vein, using my imagination and ignoring available occult lore while stealing and padding what I had with whatever seemed to work in terms of my egotistical pursuit of fame and glory in the public arena. We can laugh at that kind of characterization which would satirically manifest when considering such a crazy person and their mad quest.

Still, there are some systems of occultism, magic, magical orders and even traditions of Witchcraft that were created in this manner. Are they wrong headed? Ultimately, that depends on the people who follow such an imaginative, volatile, crazy and creative leader, since it would be up to them to revise a practically insane system into one that worked on a functional basis which managed to agree in part with what is practiced by other groups.

I believe that this is what happened when Doreen Valiente took on the task of revising Gerald Gardner’s vision of a Witchcraft tradition in the 20th century. What he had was cobbled together from various sources. What she did was give that vision a practical and inspired set of lore, accessible to many, and it was her work that actually started the witchcraft religious revival.

The whole point of having powerful and visionary experiences is that they ultimately need to be translated into intelligible and practical lore, whether that would be mythic poetry, artwork, theater, music, or ritual and occult metaphysics. Visions are part of another realm altogether, but in order to be truly useful, they need to be interpreted and grounded in the reality of doctrine and established practice. That will cause the vision to be diluted, and it will lose some of the power that it had when it was initially experienced. However, translation is the only way for high level visions and insights to be made available to others and subject to peer review.

This whole process of vision translation is a major part of the Hero’s journey. The vision that is translated is the boon made manifest for all to realize and use.  The Hero’s journey is, of course, associated with the cycle of transformative initiation, so the stage where the boon is translated into a medium intelligible to others outside of this cyclic process is the most difficult and important step in the whole process. Because this is a natural cyclic part of transformative initiation, it would seem that the process of verification and validation is built into the process of achieving a world transforming vision and then translating it into something that is recognizable and accessible to others. One could consider that all of the world’s great religions followed this pattern.

What this means is that if someone has a powerful visionary experience and they don’t bother to translate or mediate it so that it fits into the current tenets and doctrines or is accepted as valid by other practitioners, then they have not completed the most important part of having that vision in the first place. They, more or less, have failed in their quest! This is something important to consider when seeking to popularize the results of visionary experiences. In such a situation, context is important, where the beholder makes certain that others are aware of how these insights and new perspectives came about. That they were part of a visionary or paranormal experience and that they are, as of yet, unverified by either practice or doctrine. I think that such an approach is the most ethical, but it does diminish the power of the experience.

Since my days as a prophet of the Atlantean system of magic, I made an effort to let people know if something that I have discovered or insightfully experienced was derived through a visionary experience or was the product of the conversations that I have had with various spirits and Deities. Some of things that I have been told appear to be groundless or even foolish, while others have opened doors to new practical lore or new ways of thinking about a topic. Not everything that I experience within a magical operation is prophetic, profound or pure genius. Most of it is just the debris of my magical avocation, and if it is useful, it is often only useful to me. When presenting such an idea I make certain that my colleagues know my sources and whether or not such ideas are validated, or as of yet not validated. I don’t pretend that something is a fact until I discover corroborative evidence, and even then, it is still subject to peer review and possible disputation.

I believe that this is way we should all behave when we encounter powerful visionary experiences or paranormal occurrences that impart to us new perspectives and possible lore. While the emotional investment is very high, the path of translation and validating should be equally gratifying, although requiring a fair amount of time and effort. What we don’t need in the present age are hair-brained ideas, ridiculous pronouncements or practices that are based on unsubstantiated or unverified personal gnosis. I know that such experiences can be compelling, but often what we receive under such circumstances is for our own personal consideration. Not everything that we receive from the Deities is prophetic or profound, except to ourselves, and only in that moment of divine inspiration.

Frater Barrabbas

Age of Authenticity - Magical and Mystical Orders

Lately there has been some controversial discussions (led by Peregrin Wildoak) about whether or not the Golden Dawn is dead. That it actually died out in the late 40's and that current variations of this tradition are mere pretenders to the traditional heritage, which was established by the adepts who started and built up the order in the late 19th century. As I examined these articles and the associated comments I realized that what was really being discussed was the issue of legitimacy vs. authenticity.

Clearly, if one takes the position of legitimacy in regards to the Golden Dawn, none of the current adepts can claim to have a living charter dispensed to them from any of the previous legitimate GD orders. Peregrin is correct and accurate in his discussion about the present state of the Golden Dawn. Unless, of course, one of the chiefs can claim to have re-established a connection with the source adepts who apparently started this lineage, and I do believe that one of them can. However, that is besides the point, since such proof can’t be delivered to the public at large without profoundly violating one’s initiatory oaths of secrecy. We can at least recognize that Peregrin is correct in his assumptions overall. That is, if legitimacy is the only measure of an organization’s true value.

If someone or some group were to acquire all of the accouterments and lore of a specific religious, mystical, masonic or magical organization and then proclaim themselves to be a legitimate representative of that organization, the greater community would rightfully judge and declare them to be fraudulent. Taking this perspective to the absolute degree of validating legitimacy, the current and modern Golden Dawn can’t be confused with the Golden Dawn of the previous age. In fact it could be argued that the modern Golden Dawn has no real legitimacy and is therefore completely spurious. While they might share some lore and even objectives, they are not the same organization. It’s really that simple. It’s very much black and white! Or is it?

In the late 19th century, and into the middle of the 20th century, issues of spiritual and magical legitimacy were quite important. If you made claims about your magical or spiritual pedigrees then you better have something to back it up. Deceptive advertising and lying about legitimacy was grounds for a huge scandal and probably the complete dissolution of the said spurious organization. However, something started happening in the 20th century and it became a powerful force in the 1960's that changed the whole equation of spiritual and magical organizations. We entered a new age where legitimacy was trumped by authenticity. People wanted authentic spiritual and magical experiences. They weren’t concerned with valid pedigrees or vaunted legitimacy, they just wanted to experience the “real thing.”

There were some organizations still around by that time, but as Peregrin reported, many had gone dormant or were soon to do so. This didn’t stop people from forming new groups and organizations based on older and dormant institutions or even from crafting something entirely new. Despite being completely illegitimate and unable to claim any kind of historically valid lineage, these groups and organizations were and are successfully producing authentic experiences. If Peregrin was so correct that knock-offs and spurious groups couldn’t produce anything of any worth because they were illegitimate then these new organizations shouldn’t be able to do produce anything of value, but in fact they do. There must be something wrong with Peregrin’s logic and indeed, there is something wrong with it. We don’t live in an age where legitimacy is important any more. We live in an age of authenticity, and the rule of thumb is that if a group functions as it should and manages to produce authentic experiences then it is valid regardless of whether or not it is legitimate. Most if not nearly all Wiccan lineages are not legitimate because the tradition only goes back to the founder, and all founders were inveterate self-made eclectic seekers. Even so, there are many fine and excellent witches and exponents of witchcraft within these organizations. In fact, some of the best witches I know don’t come from any initiatory lineage whatsoever - they are fully self-made.

Perhaps one of the biggest self-made magicians of the 20th century was William Grey who didn’t belong to any organization, but still founded his own tradition of magic and occult spirituality. No one can dispute his contribution to Western Occultism, but he doesn’t belong to any specific tradition. He was not an initiate in the classic definition of the term, but he was clearly an adept at the end of his journey. How can we reconcile such a discrepancy? William Grey was authentic - he worked steadily at his craft for most of his lifetime. The end result was actually quite predictable. If anything else, this example is a simple matter of demonstrating how important authenticity has become over the last 50 years. Legitimacy is quaint and nice if you have it, but it is also highly irrelevant and unneeded in the present age. What is needed is more authenticity. Do you talk about magick (or seek to eliminate it by erroneously calling it “mysticism”) or do you practice it? Is it part of your heritage or is it part of your life as a living tradition? These are the relevant questions that we should focus on.

In the end it doesn’t really matter which group in the Golden Dawn represents a legitimate unbroken lineage or not. What matters is whether the lore, practices and operations actually succeed in generating real and lasting transformations in the adherents and practitioners. What matters most is what produces results - everything else is just superficial gloss.         

If you want to look at my previous articles on this issue, you can find them here, and here. I announced a few years back that we live in the Age of Authenticity and I still stand by that proclamation.

Frater Barrabbas

Questions About the Future of Modern Witchcraft and Paganism

(Dance of the Dead - Modern Witchcraft and Paganism?)

 

One of the things that has most captured my imagination and inspiration is how both Gardner and Alex Sanders experimented and tinkered with their traditions, as if they were never really satisfied with what they had and were always on the lookout for new and interesting lore. Back in the 1960's, the practice of Witchcraft and Paganism was so new that the various leaders of these traditions engaged in a flurry of creative experimentation and investigation. Yet the focus was not so much on the religious liturgy, although that did play a part, but on the whole basis or foundation of a modern praxis of ritual magick. Lineages and initiatory affidavits were not very attractive to those “spiritual spelunkers,” but entering into the reality of Spirit and the domain of the mysteries was critically important. It was a time of discovery, experimentation and personal development. Arcane studies and antique knowledge were being rediscovered, as if they had been completely lost and not temporarily forgotten. It was a chaotic but very fruitful time for those various pagan and wiccan traditions who were the founders of the overall movement, but it promised so very much to even the most superficial faddist.

In a word, what was important to witches and pagans in the halcyon days of the 1960's was authenticity rather than legitimacy. Young people who followed their urges for this phenomenon wanted authentic experiences of what would be called natural religion and magick, and they were less interested in established organizations. These people didn’t flock to the Masons, the Theosophical Society, spiritualist churches, or other such organizations; instead they fashioned their own groups and organizations. This is also why eastern religions became so popular during that time because they offered their adherents authentic spiritual experiences in a startlingly different cultural context. To young people starved for actual experiences of the occult world and the supernatural, these new avenues represented what they called “the real deal.”

Contrast that time with today and we can see a very different world, and I would urgently state my opinion that it is an apparent time of diminishment and decline. It is also a time for a whole new focus and a division between two divergent groups. When witches or pagans of any tradition become more concerned about stridently preserving their tradition and establishing their lineage bonafides instead of continuing to experiment and develop their personal and traditional approach to pagan beliefs, ideals and occult practices, then I feel that a corner has been turned, and unfortunately, for the worse. Orthodoxy has the terrible effect of not only preserving a tradition but also making a permanent edifice out of it, where change is anathema and strict adherence is the only possible direction. While there might be a certain diversity even in established traditions, they are rigidly held as if they were unassailable holy writ. This sort of mindless dedication belies the fact that differences and variances in Pagan and Wiccan lineages were developed only a short time ago, and they emerged because someone was tinkering with the tradition that they had received.

Ossifying the founding traditions of the Gardnerian and Alexandrian craft, and their various offshoots, is a sure sign that they are in decline since no further development is either desired or even possible. The emphasis has changed from discovery to one of preserving protocols and purifying the sources of one’s liturgical praxis; in other words, focusing on legitimacy instead of authenticity. This process of sanitizing a tradition is actually quite deadly, in my opinion, since it eliminates the possibility of experiencing the mysteries of the natural world outside of the stated and sparse liturgical lore. It also cordons off these traditions in a manner so that they are immune from revision, experimentation, or even developing new lore. They focus on a kind of nebulous religious paganism instead of magical practices and its various associated lore. As the ranks of witches and pagans become ever more elderly and religiously conservative, the actual numbers of young and new adherents also diminishes as well as the vibrancy and relevancy of the tradition itself.

This is really a very sad event, considering how young the various traditions of witchcraft and paganism truly are. Sixty years is hardly enough time to formulate a comprehensive spiritual and magical tradition. It would seem to me that what is really needed is a lot more experimentation and a lot less emphasis on lineage and liturgy, since otherwise these traditions will become dormant before they can even mature. I wrote a past article on legitimacy vs. authenticity representing, as it does, the divide that faces modern paganism and witchcraft, and that the difference between the two is quite distinct. You can find that article here.

A crucial dividing point between the vibrancy of the 1960's and today is the monumental work of Ronald Hutton, entitled “Triumph of the Moon,” which changed the whole perspective of modern witchcraft and paganism. It quickly transitioned from being a form of intense social and religious rebellion allied with an antique heritage to one that is a wholly modern creation. What Hutton did was to set the historical record straight in regards to the actual history of witchcraft and paganism in Britain, but it also had the effect of turning these new creeds into a harmless and socially friendly religious sodality. So much effort has been put into reclaiming and mainstreaming the word “Witch” that it would seem much of the real power and fascination the word has in our culture, and the rather ambiguous connotations that it has in folklore, appear to be lost. I would caution that “defanging” Witchcraft and making it analogous to other mainstream faiths is certainly a way to drain it of it mystery, awe and imagination - the very things that drew me to it so many years ago.

(A similar event occurred to the Catholic church through the auspices of reform. Vatican II eliminated at a stroke the power and magic of the Catholic mass and the veneration and worship of the Saints, and so it robbed the church of everything that made it uniquely authentic. That form of antique religious magic passed on to the followers of the African and Hispanic diaspora, where the “true” magical church is still alive and thriving.)

So I have been brooding over these various opinions and issues that I have with modern witchcraft and how it is practiced today, and I have stated them in some of my previous articles for others to read and ponder as well. However, it seems that until recently, no one has really stated the obvious conclusion that all of these disturbing changes seem to imply. The really dreadful issue that everyone seems to be tip-toeing around is that modern witchcraft, in regards to established traditions, is more or less dead or dying. Perhaps the bravest writer out there who has eloquently and clearly stated this forbidden conclusion is an author named Peter Grey. He wrote an article on the Scarlet Imprint blog entitled “A Forking of Paths,” and you can find it here. Peter not only has affirmed my suspicions and opinions, but he has brought out in a very clear and unequivocal manner what I have been thinking for quite some time. He has stated that modern witchcraft has already passed a fork in the road between those who espouse a gentle and socially affable modern pagan religion with those who continue to seek authentic experiences in the domain of nature mysteries and witchcraft based magick. 

One of the most compelling things that Peter has said in his article, and that I have witnessed myself over the last couple of decades, is that “initiatory” witchcraft traditions seem to be populated with far more older established members than younger new members. I have not only seen this phenomenon in regards to covens, groups and organizations, but also at local social gatherings of various types. Our local COG organization consists of mostly middle aged adults with very few young people. There is a reason for this dearth of new and youthful members, particularly since the emphasis of these older traditions and groups is more on a stultifying legitimacy than authentic experiences. A single quote from Peter’s article more than makes the point that what we are seeing is a movement in decline as opposed to one that is growing and continuing to evolve.

“Far from being healthy, the argument could be made that modern pagan witchcraft is already on the wane. The lack of fire is evident in the dearth of young people at this, and many other events. Modern pagan witchcraft seems irrelevant to the concerns of their lives, it is tangential to their struggles, which are about to become immeasurably harder.”

Another fascinating point that Peter has made is to compare the modern witchcraft traditions to another slowly disappearing esoteric tradition in American culture, the Masons. I found this statement to be quite profound and even a bit alarming.

“Initiated Wicca will follow the same arc of decline that Masonry has.”

So if Peter is stating that traditional Witchcraft or Wicca is facing an immanent decline into obscurity and death, does that mean that the whole theme of earth-based spirituality, including the natural mysteries and earth-based magick, is in decline as well? I think that the answer to that question is to be found in wherever the energy and development is still occurring in the area of earth-based spirituality, and particularly, where the young people are still flocking to find authentic experiences. It is in the arena of what could be called the alternative traditional witchcraft, or those traditions that are completely outside of the Gardnerian model that became popular Wicca. These groups would include both European as well as Carribean and South American witchcraft traditions, which only recently have become accessible to outsiders.

In my own town, the cutting edge of witchcraft is to be found in the ongoing discussion meeting known as the “Old Craft Discussion Group,” or in certain experimental groups, or groups presenting a new cultural matrix altogether. What is exciting to these people is not the Gardnerian based traditions, but in forms of witchcraft that are to be found in Brazil and the Carribean, as well as in West Africa and other locations. It is in these places that witchcraft is still defined as a praxis of magic as opposed to a pagan religion, and where the term “Witchcraft” represents someone who has the power to kill as well as to cure. These groups are the ones that are being sought, and they represent the melding of the old world with the new to fashion a truly viable authentic tradition. 

The key to this revelation is that ecstasy, magic, foreboding darkness, mystery, and even a bit of awe and fear produce a more authentic experience of witchcraft than anything a traditional coven could produce today. Wherever a tradition has systematically eliminated its own magic, mysteries and the full immersion of its adherents into the numinous world of the Gods and the dead ancestors then that tradition has thoroughly and completely lost its way. This is my opinion and I am sure that some will hotly contest it; but I believe that magic and the mysteries, as well as ecstasy, are fundamentally important to a true practice of witchcraft. I make no apologies for stating this opinion.

Making an authentic experience of the mysterious and tenebrous domain of Spirit available to anyone who desires it (instead of catering to an elite or exclusive clique) will not only engage the young and the old, but will also continue the process of discovery and personal development that is so integral to a healthy religious and magical movement. While the staid traditions of Gardnerian Wicca will slowly die out and pass away into oblivion, the new impulses and cutting edge experiential practices will be taken up by others.

Certainly, as the post-industrial age becomes more apparent and starts to profoundly effect more of the population, a spiritual philosophy and magical technology based on earth centered spirituality will become much more attractive to the masses. Rigid orthodox religious practices will continue to lose popularity, and their membership will dwindle down to a fringe minority over the coming decades. Yet, the mysteries, with that hair-raising magic which so haunts us all, and the ecstatic forays into the domain of Spirit; these will remain the proclivity of a small group of people, all of whom are self-elected, self-directed and self-motivated. It is my opinion that these individuals are the true hidden children of the Goddess of Witchcraft, and the carriers of that tradition into the far future.

Frater Barrabbas

Belief, Faith and Experience - Levels of Experiencing Religion

I wish to continue to discuss the social categories and dynamics of religion, picking up where I left off with the discussion of legitimacy and authenticity. I would like to now focus on the three types of religious sentiment, and look at belief, faith and experience and how they can shape a religious organization as well as the opinions and practices of the individual adherent.


This brings us to the discussion of the three fundamental levels of experiencing religion, as based upon the definitions of religion given previously. Ken Wilber proposes (in the book “A Sociable God”) that there are three basic levels to religious practice and adherence, and these are belief, faith and experience. (See chapter 6, pages 105 - 111.)

Belief is the lowest level achievable by a member of a religious body because it does not require any examination or analysis of one’s creed. It only requires a complete embrasure and acceptance of a codified belief system or doctrine. Believers do not question their beliefs. They tend to interpret liturgy and sacred scriptures in a literal sense, and negatively judge those who are either outside of the faith or dare question any of the foundational beliefs that make up the base of that creed. Believers are passionate, often anti-intellectual and zealous because they adhere unconditionally to dogma and doctrine, and eagerly proselytize their beliefs to others. Religious wars, crusades and terrorist attacks are typically promoted by a minority of overly zealous believers. Tolerance and inclusiveness are usually not their modus operandi, since to admit anything different than what is dictated in their religious creed would, in their mind, jeopardize their belief entirely. Those virtues typically characterize individuals who have begun to actually examine their beliefs and question their basic spiritual assumptions.

The next level is faith, which represents a state where believers have progressed to the point of examining the nature of their beliefs, allowing for the intrusion of doubt, speculation and the inclusion of alternative perspectives; something that would have been impossible for a believer. To those who have faith, beliefs are not the source of their religious involvement, but rather it is an intuition of Deity, where they begin to apprehend a Godhead that has become more intimate and transcendental. Therefore, those who have faith avoid any kind of literal interpretation to doctrine, liturgy or sacred scriptures. Faith is a religious perspective that can admit that spirituality is full of paradoxical qualities which can’t be fully explained or determined through doctrine or dogma. Faith is a natural maturation of belief, and leads its adherents ultimately to become spiritual seekers.

We should keep in mind that zealous believers are also typically provided a great deal of spiritual experience through an active pursuit and full engagement of their religious doctrines. Yet this acts as a mechanism for merely reinforcing what they already believe. Still, that kind of spiritual experience is closely guarded, carefully defined and rigorously controlled by the religious organization that sponsors it, whereas people of faith seek their experiences independently and even outside of their mainstream religion.

This leads us to the next level, which is that of spiritual experience. Experience is superior to both belief and faith, since it is a kind of knowledge of Spirit that is outside and beyond the usual confines of a religious creed. Experience verifies the tenets of a religion, but usually in a manner that reveals far more than the original intent of those tenets. This is why spiritual experience can be considered dangerous and inimical to the dogmatic practices and rigid doctrines of the believer.

Spiritual experience is where individuals have direct and unsupervised encounters with the Deity, as a deeper perception of Spirit or a peak experience, either of which allows for a temporary insight into (and influence from) one of the authentic trans-personal realms. (Wilber has called these the psychic, subtle or causal domains of higher consciousness.) Spiritual experiences can also cause powerful cathartic realizations to occur, generating a profound internal transformation that can become permanent. Experiences are ephemeral, even when they cause transformations, so seekers are required to integrate those experiences into their base of spiritual knowledge, translating their messages from a deeply personal and subjective sphere into one that is objective and easily understood by others.

The integration of spiritual experiences into one’s personal spiritual knowledge is a process of structural adaptation. A peak experience is fleeting, despite the fact that it represents an authentic spiritual experience; it needs to be examined and analyzed so that it can become part of the seeker’s permanent knowledge of things spiritual. A single peak experience can’t alter the conscious mind of spiritual seekers, but a series of them can and do alter seekers in a very profound and permanent manner. The process of continual spiritual experience, which builds one’s spiritual knowledge through adaptation, also fosters a corresponding process of transformative growth and an incremental expansion of conscious.

So we have belief, faith and experience, representing the three levels of religious expression. Each of these levels represents progressive stages of spiritual maturity, knowledge and insight, which an individual acquires as they seek to directly apprehend the nature of the Godhead. But what of the nature of the various religions themselves? Certainly, the qualities of belief, faith and experience would be quite different depending on the nature of the organization in which they occur. Some religious organizations and institutions are closed off and don’t allow individuals to directly experience the numinous manifestation of the Deity; others require their members to ultimately move up this ladder of realization.

In the next stage of our consideration of religion, we should examine the different kinds of spiritual organizations that exist, particularly those in the U.S. We should examine the “source” religion as it is found within the underlying strata of our culture, and how that source religion changed and split up over the past century. We should additionally note that all religions are in some fashion the same and they are also quite different, nor should we eliminate quasi religious political systems or even atheism from our considerations.

This leads us to examine the nature of religion itself, to determine the structures and dimensions found within the cultural matrix in which they occur. One of the more insightful and valuable points that Ken Wilber makes in his book is that academics who study the sociology of religion have developed a theory which states that all religions seem to be fundamentally the same at their core or “deep level,” and that obvious differences are believed to be just surface translations. This theory was proposed in the 1960's by the eminent sociologist and professor, Robert Bellah, and distilled by Wilber in his book.

Bellah’s theory subscribes to the notion that all religions are the same, even though through a deeper analysis, this notion appears to be superficial and does little to explain the intrinsic nature of religions and their obvious differences. Adhering to this theory forces scholars to ignore rather than explain the differences between religions. Although somewhat limited by today’s standards, his theory was ground breaking nonetheless. Bellah’s approach to theorizing the function and structure of religion is  referred to as “symbolic realism.” This theory is presently in the process of being augmented with a different and more subtle approach, called “structuralism;” a scholastic mechanism that has been successfully used to explain a number of social organizations. Interestingly enough, structuralism has its origins in modern linguistics. This adaptation of Bellah’s theories was put forth by the sociologist Thomas Robbins and psychologist Dick Anthony.

Symbolic realism proposed that all religions underlie a universal religion at the level of the social linguistic deep structure. However, structuralism has maintained that religions that have a different surface structure must also have a different deep structure, just as different languages have both a different surface and deep structure. While not wanting to get deep into a discussion of the merits of symbolic realism vs. structuralism, it is important to note that different religions focus on different priorities in regards to legitimacy and authenticity, and that each of these two different perspectives have their own distinct deep and surface structures as well. Ken Wilber made some additions and minor modifications to these theories so that they would use the differentiation of legitimacy and authenticity, adding two more dimensions to the concept of surface and deep structures. I have found Wilber’s modifications to be quite useful and they seem to fix some of the flaws that the structuralist approach to religion still appeared to contain. Wilber’s contention is that legitimacy and authenticity entail different deep structures and surface structures in religions that focus on one of the pair, to the obscuring or altogether omission of the other.

Legitimacy in religion incorporates a deep structure of meaningfulness, social integration, membership status and symbols of immortality (collective destiny), as well as an exoteric mythic civil (mainstream) religious organization. Authenticity in religion incorporates a deep structure of non-rational engagement that precipitates conscious evolutionary growth, promoting a universal mysticism and an esoteric mystery religion; where paradoxical perceptions are valued, matriculated and utilized to act as transformative mechanisms. The dynamic contrast between exoteric and esoteric religions is fundamental to the difference between legitimacy and authenticity. Whereas surface structures change slowly through a process of evolution and re-translation, deep structures change through revolution, so the change in a deep structure, when it happens, is rapid, catastrophic and intense. It should also be understood that deep structures are not monolithic, that they can and do change, but the most common changes are surface changes.

After Wilber has throughly examined all of these theories about the sociology and psychology of religion (and added his own modifications), he then uses it elaborate on one of Bellah’s main theoretical premises, that of an American civil religion (see pages 124 - 139). This is where the concept of a “source” religion enters into our considerations. The source religion for the U.S. is the civil or state religion that shaped the ideals and insights of the founders who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This is the first time that I had ever been exposed to the theory of a basic civil religion practiced in the U.S., but it seems to make sense, since America’s pluralistic culture can tend to be homogenous in certain areas, such as language, education, and the mainstream civil religion shared by the majority.

This civil religion, based as it was on Anglo Protestantism, was a legitimate rather than an authentic religion, which Wilber says: “served good mana on a mythic-membership level and it offered an easy abundance of taboo-avoidance and immortality symbols” (pg. 124). America’s civil religion linked Protestant Christianity with obvious political expressions of nationalism and patriotism, producing such slogans as “In God We Trust” or “One Nation, Under God.” One could also easily define other state or civil religions in this manner, particularly in the manifestation of monolithic communist governments, such as in the former Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, to mention just two. The ramification of this theory of an American civil or state religion becomes quite insightful when we consider what happened to that spiritual institution in the late 20th century. 

The American state religion began to fail in the 1960's, and was rapidly replaced by new religions or by a reformation of the old Protestant paradigm (Evangelism, Dispensationalism, Fundamentalistic Christianity). The mainstream creeds began to lose their effectiveness and their membership began to drastically drop off. Wilber continues this analysis with the statement: “As the old translation-convenant finally disintegrated, it left in its wake three separate lines of development, lines that were already in existence” (pg. 125). These three lines were broken into two groups, those who found fulfillment in secular rationalism and those who chose to be seekers of authentic religious experience.

Seekers of authentic religious experience could also be broken into two basic groups; those who were ready for personal transformation and those who weren’t. Those who couldn’t transform became alienated by secular rationalism and took refuge in various pre-rational immortality symbols and mythological ideologies, either as fundamentalists or as new age religious cultists. Those who could transform chose spiritual paths that would best facilitate that need, so the various movements centered around esoteric religious interpretations, such as earth-based spirituality, theosophical and eastern religious transplants, were born. As diverse as all of these movements presently are, they have one point in common; they have given birth to an ever growing minority of spiritual seekers in America, which will hopefully one day become the dominant form.

Wilber writes: “Since established religion represents a compromise with the ongoing secular institutions, the only other possible host of revolutionary [religious] thought, however unwittingly, is the noninstitutionalized religious sector” (pg. 127).  So what we have in America, and perhaps by some extension, Europe, is a natural competition between regressive and progressive spiritual forces, which will ultimately lay the foundations for a completely new spiritual perspective in the West. We can see this dichotomy at work not only in religion, but also in politics and the collective cultural social psychology. There is a polarity between those who are socially and culturally conservative and those who are socially and culturally progressive.

Our current spiritual crisis in the U.S. is caused by the promotion of reactionary religious doctrines by various orthodox (or ultra-orthodox) organizations, which have attempted to enforce the failed legitimacy of the civil religion (American Protestantism). These reactionary forces disguise themselves as religious orthodoxy, patriotism, social conservatism and old-style family values, but are actually regressive reactions to the onslaughts of science and secularism. The fear of change and the desire to return to more fundamental values is completely contrary to adaptation and spiritual evolution.  It creates a kind of schizophrenic social pathology in which the future and all its potential is feared and rejected rather than embraced. Such fears, on the level of the social collective, represent a powerful regressive movement in our culture. Yet to our benefit, there is an equal counter force in our culture generated by a progressive spiritual movement that encourages tolerance, curiosity, courage, openness and optimism.

The conservative political movement in this country has defined conservative values as being religious and spiritual, in addition to fiscal conservatism and patriotism, and has defined its liberal opponents as being secular, unpatriotic, socialistic and anti-religious. This perspective is, of course, quite erroneous, since they appear to have excluded the possibility of individuals independently validating their spiritual beliefs through personal experience, and so, to them, there can’t be any evolution or growth of ideas. The viewpoint of orthodox religion and that of its political partner, social conservatism, are static and locked into an idyllic perception of the past. Since the technological world is rapidly changing and science is pushing back frontiers at even a greater pace, it would seem to be as vitally important for religions to be pushing back the frontiers of higher consciousness.

A progressive approach to spiritual studies and discipline would be the obvious new wave of the future for organized religions. A small number of groups and non-institutional organizations have already begun to trail-blaze this new direction, and it is only a matter of time before the rest of the Western world catches up to that small minority. In the meantime, social entropy gnaws away at the foundations of moribund orthodox religious institutions, and the dire necessities of the post modern world will even quicken their eventual end. However, that ending may be quite messy, as the current state of our post modern world seems to indicate.

Regressive social forces are not restricted to exoteric religious organizations, and these tendencies can bleed over into pseudo occult or spurious esoteric cults, producing an aberration of progressiveness that can never be authenticated. Such organizations, while pretending to be cutting edge or so called “New Age,” actually possess the same deep structure as extremely conservative fundamentalist religious organizations. They are typified by dogmatic or doctrinal tenets that can’t be evaluated, since they block any real means of testing or authentication.  These reactionary forces can also be defined as rebellious or counter-cultural, but they are still a negative reaction to science and secular rationalism. However, the counter-culture in some cases produced a real desire for authentic spiritual experiences and inspired some to become true spiritual seekers. That movement continues to gain momentum and depth.

The religious struggle in our present age, according to Wilber, is the struggle to somehow establish or resurrect legitimacy in a world where legitimate religion is no longer viable, due to the powerful social effects of science, technology and the necessity of secular government institutions. The struggle is represented in the world today by violent reactionaries, but is actually an inward search for an authentic religious experience. A resolution of this struggle will either produce a world that embraces authentic religion, conscious evolution and esoteric spirituality, or one that has destroyed itself - there seems so little possibility of compromise.

The relevance of these considerations to the greater occult community is that we, who are pagans, initiates and ritual magicians, by definition having formed an esoteric organization dedicated to Gnosis and spiritual evolution (i.e., the Order of the Gnostic Star), must represent the cutting edge of progressive thought and spiritual practices in the world. Our path must be one that is authentic, so for this reason we teach and share the mechanisms of the liturgy, rituals, and ceremonies of a modern transformative magick, as practiced within the Western Mystery Tradition. We don’t require anyone to blindly adhere to any doctrine or dogma, since whatever we hold as collective beliefs must be verified by personal experience.  We are proponents of conscious evolution, spiritual growth, continuous transformation, and ultimately, enlightenment and spiritual ascendency.

Our esoteric organization teaches the methods of conscious transformation, and these become the tools that the seeker and practicing ritual magician uses to foster a spiritual discipline of continuous transformation. Transformation develops depth, insight and stability at higher transcendental levels of being.

Ultimately, continuous conscious transformation has the effect of causing a complete social revolution within external religious organizations, permanently changing the translation of integrative forces and the nature of meaningfulness itself (doctrine, liturgy, sacred scriptures). In this manner, religion loses its literal interpretation of myth and lore, but does not lose its inherent mysteries, myths and paradoxes, thus removing from religious experience dogma and doctrine, and replacing them with individual and collective searches for authenticity based on transcendental transformation.

Wilber defines a true transformational organization as one that is based on the Buddhist Sangha model (a community of monks with a common goal or interest), which is analogous to an organization in the western tradition that I call a “Star Group.” This kind of organization is a close knit group that retains inter-personal access and is an appropriate place for rational inquiry, logical reflection, and a systemic study of all relevant philosophical areas. Such a group would reject dogmatic beliefs and insist on experience, and a peer review of those experiences. A Star Group is not a monastery or secluded group of individuals living in isolation (such as a Sangha), but a group of disciplined adepts living in the world, but periodically meeting to engage in important group activities. Such activities would include establishing a combined methodology or approach to acquiring total enlightenment.

The purpose to this kind of approach would be to destroy that “exclusive identity of consciousness with the mind,” but not destroy the mind itself, which would be subsumed into a larger supreme identity (pg. 134). Spiritual service and ego effacement would be promoted, as opposed to elitism and exclusive sect membership and its artificial ego enhancement. Therefore, all individuals would be subject to an examination by their peers, to “remind ego of its phase specific and intermediate place in over-all development” (pg. 134). This kind of group practice would foster a sense of selflessness that allows the transformation of one’s ego, so it may be transcended and allow for the greater levels of conscious development to occur without obstacle or impediment. This kind of organization is exactly what the Order seeks to realize in the formation of the autonomous local magickal temple and its membership.

A Star Group has its opposite, which is represented by regressive cults of the supposed “new religions.” Wilber points out that these groups can be identified by the following characteristics, and they should be avoided by all seekers as sinister traps and obstacles to true enlightenment.

According to Wilber, regressive cults are based on the dynamics of a pre-personal fixation on a “cult leader,” with consequent obedience to a father/mother figure/totem master, with self to clan fusion and disassociation (participation mystique) with group ceremonies, slogans (mantras of propaganda), and group mythic apocrypha. (See page 133.)

Entrenched members of such groups usually show borderline neurotic or psychotic dispositions with ego weakness and concrete immersion in the cultic experience, causing them to have difficulty in holding an abstract location in their mind. These people are typically engaged in a narcissistic involvement in their group, having low self-esteem along with a correlative difficulty in handling moral ambiguity, contradictions (paradoxes) or complex choice structures. Such a group fosters an atmosphere of passive dependence on an authority figure.

I think that behind Wilber’s Freudian terminology, we can easily see such a cult member as a person who believes that he has no individual worth, and who is therefore completely subsumed into the group. Within that protected environment he receives all of his personal worth and undergoes a kind of self-inflation through a deep identification and participation in the group. Such a person is barely able to function alone, and is completely indoctrinated into the group-mind, being unable to engage in any kind of critical thinking outside of the rigid definitions of that group and its limited view of reality. I can recognize these symptoms all too well, since I have experienced them myself when I belonged to a cult disguised as a witch coven.

A regressive cult highly discourages the very things that would make it a dynamic and creative organization, such as the power of  “active adolescent independence” (transcendence from subconscious dependence to self-conscious responsibility - pg. 132), rational self-reflection, critical appraisal and logical discourse.  Uncritical or unconditional allegiance to the totem master constitutes much of the psychological foundation of the cult. Such an organization, as described above, is exactly the opposite of what the Order seeks to form in the various spiritual communities of this country. For this reason, the by-laws were produced and consensus was made the pre-eminent method for the self-governance of an autonomous temple.

The contrast between a Star Group and a regressive cult could not be more obvious to anyone who has endured, even for a short time, such a terrible group dynamic. However, the various new age organizations, as well as fundamentalist churches, seem to produce these kinds of regressive groups in great abundance. Even an experienced adept has, at one time or another, been exposed to these kinds of groups, and likely endured a harrowing escape from them. Individuals who are suffering from extreme neurosis or psychosis should never be allowed to practice magick or occultism in organizations sponsored or underwritten by the Order or its members, just as temples that succumb to the excesses of a cult mentality should be banned or shunned. The Order sponsors a healthy regimen of occult practices and beliefs, and attempts to create a local organization that is safe, creative, dynamic, open, inclusive, and compassionate.

In order to illustrate the contrast between a Star Group and a regressive cult, I have shown the latter in its worst possible light. Many groups don’t fit this paradigm, and even those that are dysfunctional have redeeming qualities. Sometimes the endemic problems of a group have more to do with its structure, practices and doctrines rather than a despotic or tyrannical leadership. The world is not black and white, but more like various shades of grey. Still, there are two practical rules that can determine the objective worth of any organization, and that is the democratic rule of consensus in some form or another, and the critical appraisal and objective examination of all beliefs and practices.

Nothing should be done simply because it is traditional or because some authority figure has deemed it so; everything should be subject to question, analysis and rational dialogue. All beliefs and practices should have a practical reason for their adherence and use, transparently known by everyone who is a member. These two practical rules can easily determine the difference between a dynamic, democratic and creative organization and one that is locked into a stasis of irrefutable doctrine and inflexible dogma. We should also keep in mind that the emphasis of religious and spiritual engagement should be on authentic experiences rather than legitimacy - a confusion between these two perspectives can have very unfortunate consequences.

I, for one, have had my fill of dysfunctional groups and organizations, and therefore, seek the path of either a solitaire practitioner or the company of a loose confederation, an enlightened Star Group. Remember, the decision to stay or leave a group is always your one power of self determination - you should never allow that right to be abrogated by anyone.

Frater Barrabbas

Definitions of Religion - Legitimacy vs. Authenticity

My previous article brought up some interesting side issues that caught me quite by surprise in regards to the question of Strega lineages, something which I had to beg forbearance from my readers, since I know very little about that particular topic. Still, I often find these discussions and arguments fairly useless, since they often confuse and conflate two very different processes that are active in religion, and that is the difference between legitimacy and authenticity. While these issues have less of an impact in larger community religions, such as Christianity, they are quite hotly contested in the much smaller religious communities of witchcraft and paganism.

First of all, lets look at the definition of these two terms, starting with the dictionary definitions and then look at them in regards to sociological and psychological definitions. We also need to keep in mind that there are two very dissimilar viewpoints characterizing religion, that of exoteric or public religion and that of esoteric or occultic religion. Depending on a person’s or group’s perspective, the terms of legitimacy or authenticity can have a far greater weight and importance.

If we look at the dictionary definition for the word “legitimate,” we will find amongst the expected definitions the term “lawful” and “conforming to accepted rules, standards, etc.” Since we are not talking about a legitimate birth, we won’t go into the definitions that are concerned with how one was born, although sometimes the terms associated with legitimate and illegitimate in regards to birth do get conflated when discussing religious organizations. This is why some groups may be referred to as legitimate or illegitimate, where the proper term would be sanctioned or unsanctioned in regards to rules and protocols - a concern specific to spiritual and religious legitimacy. 

The dictionary definition of the word “authentic” gives the associated terms “genuine” and  “real,” which I believe are important for our discussion. Interestingly, the word “authenticate” has the associated phrases “to make valid, to verify, to prove to be genuine.” It would seem that authentic would represent a religious system where genuine and real experiences are held in high esteem as opposed to lawful decorum or conforming to doctrines, practices or rules. So it would seem that the word authentic is concerned with inner experiences and legitimacy is concerned with outer practices and established rules.

These two terms, when used to define a religious group or organization reveal the fact that they refer to different and opposed dimensions. Legitimacy defines a horizontal dimension that represents social integration, cohesion, group identity and order (rules, doctrine, practices). Authenticity defines a vertical dimension that is more focused on the individual and upon personal transformation and transcendence. Just this simple differentiation of terms reveals two very starkly different approaches to religion. One is exoteric, socially integrative and is concerned with communication and accessibility, and the other is esoteric, insular, and is concerned with mysteries, paradoxes and methods of inducing ecstasy. The former is engaged with translation, the later, with transformation. As you can see, these two dynamics in religion have contrary goals and directions, and confusing them can make communication between adherents of the same faith nearly impossible.   


To further clarify this discussion, I want to present a distillation of some of Ken Wilber’s perspectives and ideas on this issue. It was while I was reading and studying some of his ideas about religion that I had an experience that changed the way I look at religion in general, and more specifically, people’s engagement in their own chosen religion. After reading and digesting what Ken Wilber has wrote on this topic, it was almost as if a light turned on in my mind. I finally realized how easy it was for individuals and groups in witchcraft and paganism to get into passionate disputes with each other, forcing schisms and breaking up groups and spiritual families. I discovered that it often came down to whether one chose to follow the path of religious legitimacy or religious authenticity. The recent schism in the Faery/Feri tradition would seem to represent this particular distinction and how it can push individuals to follow one path or the other. They are not mutually exclusive, and in fact many have found a religious path that incorporates a certain degree of both, but they do represent diametrically opposing directions, and one can’t fully and wholly engage in one without diminishing or nullifying the other.

Let me continue with my discussion about my studies and what I discovered. Ken Wilber has written a book entitled “A Sociable God” (Shambhala Publications, 2005) to help define religion and religious phenomena using the latest theories in both the social sciences, as well his own theories regarding Integral Psychology. I have found this work to be extremely important and ground breaking, since it reduces down to a simple set of definitions what is a very complex multi-disciplined set of theories which contradict each other and are hotly debated between scholars of the same or different disciplines. Ken Wilber has offered this simplified and systematic approach, thus unifying the different perspectives and eliminating contentious points of view. I might also add that these opposing views have done more to confuse the various issues about the nature of religion than clarify them.

The greatest problem in defining religion is that it is many things to many people. There is, as yet, no single uniform perspective embodying all religious viewpoints, or at least none that would make any sense. This is precisely the point that Mr. Wilber made in his work. I will present Wilber’s ideas distilled from his book in the paragraphs below for the sake of efficiency and brevity. I also wish to present this information in manner that cuts to the core of the issues surrounding religion, assisting us to succinctly understand the spiritual and religious beliefs involving witchcraft, paganism and magick.

In his book (see chapter 5, pages 98 -102), Ken Wilber presents seven distinct perspectives based on a general  definition of religion, using a combination of the various social and psychological theories. He identifies seven basic areas, and includes two more that help to determine the depth and breadth of any one single creed (vertical and horizontal dimensions). We will cover each of these in the order that Wilber presented them in his book. Keep in mind that some previous theorists have written whole books on just one of these seven perspectives.

1. Religion is a non-rational engagement. By labeling it non-rational, religion is therefore defined as belonging to or originating out of a dimension that is “other” to reason and rationality. This would indicate that the nature of Spirit, of which religion is principally concerned about, is something that can’t be either quantified or even qualified, thus making it wholly transcendental and paradoxical.

2. Religion is an extremely meaningful or integrative engagement. This definition perceives religion as being an entirely social phenomenon that brings people together, teaching them to resolve their differences and live peacefully for the common good of all. Therefore, religion is concerned with making collective meaning and searching for collective truths that further the integrity and stability of the communal organization.

3. Religion is an immortality project, which is created to deal with the insecurities associated with the ephemeral quality of human life. This theory defines religion as a powerful social belief system that bolsters the confidence of the individual member, giving one a sense of being an elite participant in the collective destiny of the group. This has the effect of assisting individuals to cope with catastrophic loss and death (as well as the potential for such) by causing them to focus instead on the guarantee of a spiritual afterlife.

4. Religion is a mechanism for evolutionary growth through conscious transformation and spiritual evolution, so that by applying oneself to its discipline, one can fully apprehend the spiritual dimension of the self. As Wilber so adroitly put it: “[E]volution and history is a process of increasing self-realization, or the overcoming of alienation via the return of spirit to spirit as spirit.” This whole process represents the drive for transcendent self-realization and personal transformation.

5. Religion represents a social phenomenon of collective psychotic fixations and is therefore, inherently regressive, pre-personal and pre-rational. Wilber says that this perspective has a negative opinion about religion: “[R]eligion is childish illusion, magic, myth.” This perspective represents the typical attitude of empirical science and academia towards religion in general, and is a major part of the creeds of social secularism and atheism. Sigmund Freud held this opinion about religion, and so did Karl Marx and many others.

6. Religion is an exoteric social institution, and its mysteries and paradoxes are understood through the periodic and continual practice of liturgy and the study of sacred scriptures, shared by all members of a specific doctrine or creed. Religion is a public organization where everything is determined and explained in great detail, and nothing is left to chance or self-determination. Exoteric religion consists of the basic and fundamental principles of any religious organization. As Wilber has said in his book: It is a “form of belief system used to invoke or support faith,..preparatory to [an] esoteric experience and adaption..”

7. Religion is esoteric and occultic, and its mysteries and paradoxes are obscured and buried deep within the core belief system that everyone else takes for granted. These mysteries are typically not realized by the general adherent, but requires a deeper and inner exposure to that spiritual system, often acquired through the agency of a teacher and an individualized spiritual practice. The goal of esoteric religion is the obtainment of mystical experiences and a direct realization of spirit in all manifestation.

After having written down these seven different perspectives on the nature of religion, Wilber then examines the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the scope of religion, which brings us to the polarization of the two terms, legitimacy and authenticity. Notice the contrast between translation and transformation, which particularly characterize the breadth and depth of a particular religious practice.

8. Religion is only legitimate when it validates the particular “translation” or perspective established by a given doctrine or creed, usually providing its members positive reinforcements (“good mana”), and helping them to avoid social taboos (“bad mana”). This confers upon individuals a powerful emotional and social sense of being a member of a spiritual community, thereby providing personal meaningfulness, group destiny, and eschatological symbols of immortality.

Legitimacy in religion represents a horizontal dimension to qualifying a religion, and it incorporates the above definitions 2, 3 and 6. Legitimacy is concerned with the smoothness of translation (that it is readily understandable and rational) and the integrity of its social values.

9. Religion is authentic when it validates the particular “transformation” or deeper inner experience of a spiritual system. An authentic religion cuts through doctrine and dogma, giving its adherents the tools and methodologies to achieve a direct experience with the core of that religious system, and is less concerned with the outer trappings and the exegesis of liturgy and sacred scriptures.

Authenticity in religion represents a vertical dimension to qualifying a religion, and it incorporates the definitions 1, 4 and 7. Authenticity is concerned with the degree of personal transformative power and intensity associated with religious experiences, and the internal realization of truths that are paradoxical and irrational. Authenticity challenges individual spiritual seekers, forcing them to move beyond belief and faith, so as to directly experience the spiritual dimension.

So you can see from the above discussion that legitimacy and authenticity are two very different dimensions that will produce, when used exclusively, two very different religious organizations. However, most religions in the world are actually a hybrid of both of these dimensions, although as I have said, a religious group will tend to emphasize one over the other. This is also true when examining the different groups and organizations of witchcraft and paganism. Some of these groups emphasize social integration and communication, others emphasize personal transformation and occultic practices. You can see that when individuals of a greater organization who don’t agree on which emphasis should be used attempt to communicate with each other, they will not only fail to agree, but that they will not usually be able to understand the other person’s perspective. Arguments that involve legitimacy pitted against authenticity will almost always fail unless someone has the enlightened perspective that both approaches are correct, and that there is no one true way.

This also leads us to consider the nature of legitimacy within religious organizations. It would seem that it is a kind of social consensus, an agreement between members of the group. This agreement becomes part of the accepted doctrine, and therefore, is never questioned. For instance, Catholics believe that the Pope’s authority, vested in him from God, is legitimate because he represents an unbroken line of reverent individuals going all the way back to the apostle Peter. The Pope is, therefore, a representative of the apostle Peter, and all of the vested belief in Jesus Christ, his apostles and the doctrines and liturgy of the Church has been mystically translated into his very person. Does the Pope really represent an unbroken line going back to the apostle Peter? Historians would probably disagree with that claim, since for a period of time there were two opposing Popes. There is, additionally, the question of the personal integrity of some Popes in history, which might negate the idea of continuity. Also, the church hierarchy has always been the arbiter of the selection and crowning of the Pope; it is not something intrinsic in the individual, but an important role. Yet it is the consensus amongst faithful Catholics, from the lay person all the way up to the Curia of Cardinals, that the Pope represents an unbroken line, whether or not historians are willing to agree, or even that others outside of the faith would agree to its significance.

We can examine this logic and also apply it to some specific considerations in the British Tradition of Witchcraft (BTW) as it is perceived and practiced in the U.S. I am an Alexandrian witch, properly trained and initiated through all three degrees. I possess my Book of Shadows as it was given to me to be copied by my teachers, and I have papers, rituals and other lore that was passed down to me by my teachers. I have also initiated a score of women over the three decades of my practice. So one could say that I am unquestionably a legitimate witch of the BTW. Right? Not necessarily. Because there is some dispute as to whether Alex Sanders was properly initiated through all three degrees in the Gardnerian tradition, and given the sanction to promote his own initiatory line, some Gardnerians believe that all Alexandrians are not legitimate members of the BTW. Some have even said that Alexandrians aren’t even witches! (Of course, we won’t even get into a discussion of whether or not my teachers, who broke their oaths and became fundamentalist preachers, would be considered posthumously illegitimate, and therefore, negate my claim to legitimacy.)

I have personally experienced Gardnerians who were unwilling to allow me to circle with them or to even talk with me about any of their secrets because I am not, in their definition, a properly initiated Gardnerian witch. I am treated as an outsider, or perhaps a better term, as some kind of “spiritual bastard.” These same Gardnerians will admit that I am kind of a witch and a pagan, but not a legitimate member of their lineage. I have been shunned and treated as if I were the love child of some base relative. Yet my Book of Shadows and my core teachings are nearly identical to the same material used by Gardnerians. There are minor differences between the different initiatory lines of the BTW, and the unique lore of my line is no different in that respect than any other. Still, I am treated by some as an outsider.

Does this treatment bother me? Not in the least! I am not affected by this condescending behavior because I don’t need the consensus of the greater witchcraft community to validate the fact that I am indeed witch and a ritual magician. However, it does bother some witches, and I have known Alexandrians who have gotten themselves a Garderian pedigree in order to be more legitimate in the eyes of the greater witchcraft community. Why does this circumstance bother some and not others? The reason is the distinction in the emphasis between legitimacy and authenticity. For me, the most important perspective is to be authentically a witch. It doesn’t matter to me what the overall social consensus of the witchcraft community thinks is right or proper. What is important to me is that the magick I practice and the liturgical rites that I perform are effective and fulfilling for me as a spiritual person. Also, the most important goal that I am seeking is to unify myself with the One - to be enlightened and illuminated through transcendental transformation. I do work with my community as a teacher, spiritual elder and leader, but the focus of my practice is on the individual rather than the group. One could easily say that my emphasis is almost wholly towards being authentic rather than legitimate, and ritual magick probably has had a powerful effect in pushing me in that direction.

When I read or hear individuals arguing about their initiatory legitimacy or its lack, I understand and know why such a controversy is occurring. It is, in fact, a dispute over social consensus and membership credentials. Is it a valid discussion or argument? That depends on one's overall perspective, but from the standpoint of the tradition of witchcraft, authenticity must outweigh legitimacy. There are some very important reasons why this is so.

An individual’s claim to be a witch should never rest exclusively on the integrity of their supposed initiatory lineage. My tattered and questionable lineage is a case in point. I have also known a few individuals who had impeccable initiatory lineages, but who were also either completely incompetent or totally corrupt. I have also known individuals who had no exoteric initiation in any kind of reputable organization, but who were probably some of the most powerful witches I have ever encountered. Having a pedigree is no guarantee that one is a competent and capable witch, in fact sometimes it would even seem to guarantee a certain degree of fallibility and hubris. As I have stated previously, initiation is not the same thing as transcendental transformation, but for someone who seeks to emphasize authenticity over legitimacy, it becomes critically important that both occur simultaneously.

In my humble opinion, a witch should be first and foremost measured by his or her ability to function as a witch. A proper initiation and the reception of the lore of a particular line may confer legitimacy, but can’t guarantee that one is even truly a witch. What this means is that a witch is a witch because they practice witchcraft and worship the old gods. Does this negate traditions, lineages and families of witchcraft? No, it doesn’t negate them, but it also doesn’t make them a requirement for being a witch, either.

When someone comes to me and says that they are a witch, then I have the right to test them in a magick circle. If they pass that test, then I must respect that they are indeed a witch. Do I break my oaths and share the lore that was handed down to me by my teachers? Of course not! But I will also not exclude them from circling or practicing magick with me. This also means that all of the lore that I know and possess that is not covered by my initiatory oath is available for sharing with that person. Not only that, but I will believe them if they tell me that they are a witch, and I will consider them a sister or a brother - perhaps of a different line than my own, but still kindred seekers on the path of magick and mystery. Eventually, perhaps the distinction of lineages, traditions and families will melt away in the practice of witchcraft, thus we will all be of one overall greater tradition, and we will also be individual seekers after the same goals. I look forward to that time, where authenticity will rule and legitimacy will be considered a quaint affectation.

Frater Barrabbas