Peregrin’s Reply to Christian Magicians

Peregrin Wildoak responded to my article that took issue with his article about Why Christians Make Better Magicians. His response was rather harsh, but I expected that. I suppose that anyone who disagrees with Peregrin, according to him, must be mentally deficient and not up to the task of proposing an alternative perspective. He was not interested in posting his critique on my blog because he felt that I have provided a hostile environment for him to present his ideas. While one commentator on my Face Book link to the article I wrote did disparage Peregrin, I didn’t refute or delete what he said. I didn’t agree with it, but I felt that everyone has a right to their opinion, and that is also true of Peregrin himself. For that reason I decided to post and comment on Peregrin’s response so that all opposing views to what I may say or think are herein represented. It also allows me to clarify my points, but what Peregrin wrote doesn’t in any manner change my opinion about what he or I originally wrote. I agree to disagree.

What does seem to be operating here is a clash of different perspectives based on geography. Peregrin lives in western Australia and I live in the midwestern US. Australia, Canada and Britain are probably three of the most non-sectarian areas in the world. Other areas that are so blessed are Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe, not to mention Japan. There are probably a number of countries where being an occultist, pagan or even a Christian magician has no cultural stigma or much cause for concern. However, that is not the case in the U.S., as a perusal of the daily news will easily reveal. I live in a nation that is polarized by sectarian differences and where Christians routinely bitterly remark about how they are oppressed by the secular government and various institutions. Some even go so far as to blame the decline of the US on liberal attitudes towards gays, pagans, witches and occultists. We do not live in a liberal culture, although there are pockets of liberality that still exist in this nation.

Occultists, magicians, pagans, witches and other minorities are typically discrete about their activities in the U.S. Some have come out of the closet, but this is still a nation where individuals can lose their jobs or their children because of their religious affiliation. From Peregrin’s perspective, religious organizations and churches have little political power and the overall religious climate is sane, peaceful and highly tolerant. In the U.S., the opposite is true. Churches wield considerable political power (even though there is supposed to be a separation of church and state) and there is an ongoing cultural war that is sectarian and religiously intolerant. There are liberal areas in the U.S. where religious toleration is allowed to thrive, but there are also many other areas where religious intolerance, bigotry and racism still thrive, even violently so. My world is one where it is better to be discrete than open about one’s personal spiritual perspectives, particularly if they are quite outside what is generally accepted as orthodoxy in this nation.

So, what we have here are two very different perspectives, and the glaring differences between them can be shown to have their origins in the cultures from where we differently speak. Anyway, allow me to present Peregrin’s rebuttal to what I previously wrote. 

Frater Barrabbas has responded to my deliberately provocative MOTO post, ‘Why Christians Make Better Magicians’ If you are at all interested, have a look – though I will admit I had to muster up some effort myself to read through it all – other fish to fry, I guess?

I’m not gonna respond on Frater’s blog, as that has proved a hostile environment to sensitive little moi, and his Facebook post has folk summing up the weight of the arguments by simply declaring me a ‘freak’. So here are just a few points and then I’m done with it

The main thrust of Frater’s argument is the question of being able to be an openly practising magician and a member of an established (not esoteric, new age or ‘Gnostic’) church. Well of course this is not possible in many circumstances, and of course very possible in other.

Two words: Gareth Knight. Another two: Peregrin Wildoak; the priests and laity of my church are fully aware and accepting of my magic. Oh, more words: Anthony Duncan; a Canon of the Church of England. I’d even wager these two: Bob Gilbert. And two more: Whare Ra, which included Priests and a fucking BISHOP in its ranks. It all depends on the time, culture, magician and church.

Now ALL of these very faithful and theologically accepted, folk practised magic just fine while being involved in mainstream church life and duties. So I really am unsure what Frater is on about. As for the Catholic catechism – well, anyone who has ever spent time with Catholic priests and nuns knows that this is often simply a background while they get on with activities and ideas contrary to it.

I am unclear, but it seems Frater has not actually read or understood modern Christian magicians like Gareth Knight, nor the theology of people like Canon Anthony Duncan.

Frater writes: “It is my opinion that an esoteric or occult version of Christianity is the only kind of spiritual faith that would allow for a simultaneous practice of magic; but esotericism and occultism are not limited just to Christianity. Esotericism and occultism are, by definition, pan-religious, so someone who is an occultist or an esotericist would not be confined by Christian theology. They wouldn't be considered even nominally Christian, either.”

Thanks for your opinion, Frater, but it does not cohere with FACTS. There ARE Christian magicians who are members or CLERGY of mainstream, non-esoteric churches. In fact from the view of traditionalism, espoused by Guénon and others an exoteric, regular, mainstream and outer practise of our inner and esoteric faith is ESSENTIAL.

To declare “someone who is an occultist or an esotericist” not “even nominally Christian, either” is a bit presumptive. Again, there ARE plenty of Christian magicians – and these people ARE accepted by others in their church as being REAL, not nominal, Christians. I’m a case in point. So really telling me my lived experience is wrong, and that of my parish friends too, is just … well I’m not sure what it is.

Frater’s statement, “Even Catholics have been steadily removing the magic from their liturgy and practices since Vatican II.” is interesting. Clearly he is using his own terms here to describe Catholic liturgy, not that of the Catholic’s themselves. Not sure what to call that either. Of course, NO orthodox catholic theologian and few Catholic or Christian magicians would say there was ever ANY magic in Catholic liturgy. I think what Frater means – and which he erroneously calls magic – is liturgical ritual and symbolism. However, this is not and never has been magic. And Christians magicians are generally clear on the difference between sacramental and magical ritual, which again is one reason why many can a happily be an exoteric Christian at church and an inner esoteric Christian on their own or in their practise group. If one is not clear on the difference, please read Antony Duncan and Gareth Knight.

‘Nuff said? Thanks

Now that you have had the opportunity to read Peregrin’s response in its entirety without any interrupting rebuttal from me, I would like to respond to a few of his comments here.

First off, I have indeed read nearly all of Gareth Knight’s books. I have found him to be one of the most pagan friendly Christian occult authors and I can readily see that he and I have many points in common. However, having read Gareth Knight’s books, I can say that his perspective on magic, Qabalah and the occult is suffused with Theosophy, Western Occultism, and even a kind of nascent Paganism bundled together with a Christian spiritual perspective. While Peregrin might consider Gareth Knight to be a mainstream Christian, I have a problem with what seems to me to be obvious themes, such as his belief in a feminine spiritual element that he has called a Goddess, which is contrary to mainstream Christian doctrine. Mr. Knight may consider himself a Christian, but because his works are so accessible to Pagans it would seem that his teachings would have to be classified as occultic and esoteric. I have classified Gareth Knight’s writings as such and I can say that some of his ideas have certainly shaped my thoughts and perspectives on magic, even though I am not a Christian.

Peregrin then goes on to say that there are indeed occultists and magicians who are members of the clergy of some very liberal churches. There is also a Theosophical Christian church called the Liberal Catholic Church. I have never denied that this was a fact. I even possess one of these lineages that link me to the Old Catholic tradition in England. He has stated that some of these clergy magicians are Christians in good standing in their respective churches. Of course, we are talking about the Anglican Church of England, which has become quite liberal over the decades, just as the Unitarian church in the U.S. has been a bastion of liberal religious perspectives. All of this is true, even though the Anglican Church has specific cannon laws against practicing magic, divination, paganism or occultism. These laws are obviously not enforced, but that is not true of Roman Catholicism and many other denominations. This is also especially true in the U.S., where such activities would be grounds for a clergy member’s dismissal.

The point that I wanted to make in my article is that if you carefully examine the Old Testament and the New Testament there are plenty of verses that condemn magic, divination and witchcraft and any extra-theological derivations. We can start with Exodus 22:18 “Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to live.” and work our way through the entire Bible and build a pretty strong case against magic, divination or occultism. Then there are the church cannon laws that specifically condemn magic, occultism, divination and the like and compare them to “Satan’s works and pomps” as renounced in the Baptism rite. When I said that a true representation of mainstream Christianity was opposed to magic and occultism, this is represented by what is in the Bible, cannon law and even in the liturgy. 

While I never disputed that a Christian could perform magic and occultism, I did state that it would represent a contrary direction to many mainstream churches, and that to deal with this dissonance, a Christian often becomes more aligned to esoteric and occult doctrines to alleviate this dissonance. (By comparing himself to Gareth Knight who presents himself in his books as an obvious mix of Christianity, Theosophy, occultism and even paganism is to make the case that Peregrin’s Christianity is not pure and canonical.) 

However, Peregrin is correct in assuming that if a church and its members have no qualms about either lay members or clergy being occultists and magicians, then there would be no external stresses whatsoever. This should be understood as being more rare in the U.S. than it might be in Britain, Canada or Australia. Even so, it behooves one to be discrete in the U.S., and likely other places in the world where there is a lot less religious tolerance. (I would love to see Peregrin visit the U.S. and be quite open about his beliefs and practices to the congregants of a Southern Baptist church. He would very likely be ejected with a certain cold hostility usually associated with dangerous apostates.)

I found this remark from Peregrin rather astonishing. He said, “As for the Catholic catechism – well, anyone who has ever spent time with Catholic priests and nuns knows that this is often simply a background while they get on with activities and ideas contrary to it.” I have spent some time with Catholic priests (but not with nuns), and while they are all human beings subject to human frailties, I have never heard them talk about occultism or magic, or for that matter, indicate that they took their vows and responsibilities lightly. As representatives of the Catholic Church, those that I have met are quite straight laced and they always talk the “church party line.” 

Peregrin seems to be hinting that priests and nuns engage in illicit activities, but I would find that highly unlikely. Of course, I haven’t met any Catholic priests in Australia, but here in the U.S. they represent a strict regimen of observance, despite the fact that a minority have disgraced their “cloth” with criminal activity. About the most controversial thing that I have ever heard a priest talk about was his study of Teilhard de Chardin, whose ideas he admitted as being uncanonical but still rather Catholic. I wonder what Peregrin has gotten up to himself that he would know what priests and nuns are doing when not engaging with their duties? (Sounds to me like sectarian slander.)

Peregrin is also correct that Christian theologians have never admitted that their liturgies were ever magical, but even so, they have quietly worked to remove the possibility of anyone working “magic” using their church liturgy. The symbols and ritual actions are still there, but the Latin language has been replaced with the vernacular and there is far less an emphasis on a literal interpretation of the Body and Blood of Christ as having actually and physically been transubstantiated. They would call it a “superstition,” which is the canonical Catholic perspective on extra-liturgical practices. However they would find my use of the abandoned Tridentine Mass as a specific and powerful magical rite as a vile and vicious blasphemy. I do see these liturgies as being suffused with magic and I have not been beyond appropriating them for that purpose. Since a number of the old grimoires employ church liturgy in the blessing and consecration of tools, and even in the five steps of performing an evocation (not to mention the actual invocation verbiage), I would have to state unequivocally that liturgies have been used as magic rituals for centuries.

This brings me to his final pronouncement “And Christians [sic] magicians are generally clear on the difference between sacramental and magical ritual..” which I feel is either patently naive or simply a lie. All anyone has to do is examine what is going on in Voudoun, Santeria, Palo, Hoodoo, and (drum-roll) Michael Bertiaux’s magical occultism to see that there is a profound blurring between religious liturgy and magic. I suspect that this kind of revisionism and mixing of forms will continue to occur into the future whether or not Peregrin admits it. It should also be noted that this is a natural phenomenon that has been going on for millennia. Religious liturgies are one of the more important source materials for personal magic. It has always been so and probably always will be so. This is why there is so much expropriation going on within religions and across religious boundaries. While Peregrin maintains that he and other Christian magicians know and obey the boundaries between their magic and church liturgy, there are many more who have and continue to cross this boundary without any qualms or trepidations. I would have to include myself in this crowd, so I have to refute Peregrin’s last point as being completely false.

Anyway, let it not be said that I don’t give opposing views a proper place in my blog. That being said, I did find Peregrin’s critique to be rather pompous and arrogant, as if the rest of us are sadly below his intellectual prowess. He has made some legitimate points, but overall, I would say that he really missed the whole point of my previous article.

Frater Barrabbas 

Do Christians Make Better Magicians?

Back in December, Peregrin Wildoak wrote an article in his blog “Magic of the Ordinary” where he argued that Christians make better magicians. You can find it here. Reading it kind of reminded me of the old joke that used to get passed around (and found its way onto lapel buttons) that expressed something like  “Italians Make Better Lovers,” and you could put whatever ethnic group you wanted into that expression to make yourself feel proud of your ethnic tribe. I think that Peregrin has used the same approach in his article and while some of his arguments are interesting and thoughtful there are some profound flaws in his arguments as well.

Perhaps the biggest flaw in his article to lump all Christians together into one big massive group and not to differentiate them. Still, I suspect that Peregrin had a mostly esoteric brand of Christianity in mind when he wrote up his article, or at the very least, that the Christian magician would have to be broad-minded and of an esoteric cast in order to practice magic in the first place. Christian magicians would have to adopt this perspective so as not to succumb to the cognitive dissonance that they would experience when exposed to the many pronouncements in Christian churches and organizations against such practices.

While Peregrin opines that the Christian magician must go against the basic grain of Christian theology and social consensus in order to be a magician, he also ignores the fact that most of the Christian population would find such a digression to be very troubling. He says this little statement to bolster his argument: “You are flying against the wind in both contemporary egregores and you have to be pretty clear and be able to examine, refine and explain your point of view, beliefs and practices really, really well.” Of course the obvious response is that to be considered a good Christian and allowed to worship unmolested amongst one’s peers, a Christian magician would be better served to not explain his or her point of view to anyone. Here’s where keeping silent has its advantages and it should be adhered to for some very good reasons.

Peregrin also dismisses the established boundaries between what would be considered orthodox laws and beliefs about magic and occultism in Christianity. According to what he wrote adopting an obvious heterodoxic extension would allow a Christian magician to acquire a peaceful coexistence between these two conflicting perspectives. About these boundaries, Peregrin says: “The general exoteric Christian doctrines are so limiting and many of its spokespersons so stupid, to be able to accept Christianity AND be a magician is no small feat.” So basically, to lay his foundation for a general acceptance of magic and occultism within the body of the Christian teachings, Peregrin refers to those who would passionately disagree with his basic premise as “stupid.”

What that means, according to Peregrin, is that there are a lot of stupid Christian spoke-persons who have preached against deviating from accepted doctrines and tenets down through the ages and into modern times, beginning, I believe, with St. Paul himself. (Such as what Paul wrote in 1 Timothy 4.1: “We are expressly told by inspiration that, in later days, there will be some who abandon the faith, listening to false inspirations, and doctrines taught by the devils.”) Perhaps St. Paul anticipated Peregrin’s arguments for being a Christian magician. Still, it’s my opinion that to cavalierly dismiss these objections in order to practice magic and adhere to an orthodox Christian faith is to sweep quite a large number of important objections under the rug as it were. I imagine that it would be difficult to walk around such a metaphorical room and not trip over that huge mound of objections protruding from the center of the carpet on a regular basis.

A couple quotations from Catholic Catechism should pretty much set the standards for how mainstream religions reject magic and divination, even though this is something of a mild rebuke. You can find the source document online here if you really want to check whether I am fabricating these claims or not.

“Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.”

“All practices of magic or sorcery, by which one attempts to tame occult powers, so as to place them at one's service and have a supernatural power over others - even if this were for the sake of restoring their health - are gravely contrary to the virtue of religion. These practices are even more to be condemned when accompanied by the intention of harming someone, or when they have recourse to the intervention of demons. Wearing charms is also reprehensible. Spiritism often implies divination or magical practices; the Church for her part warns the faithful against it. Recourse to so-called traditional cures does not justify either the invocation of evil powers or the exploitation of another's credulity.”

A better approach, in my opinion, would be to admit that a Christian magician is going against basic doctrine in order to find greater truths, even though such a divergent path is fraught with spiritual dangers and warnings from the scriptures themselves. Magic and the occult are not topics that a good Christian lightly undertakes, and cherry picking those elements in the doctrine and scriptures that are encouraging while ignoring the many warnings and condemnations is nothing short of fatuous. The truth is that Christianity is principally against the practice of divination and magic, or for that matter, the adoption of occult philosophies. Some practices (like astrology or healing through the use of sacraments) are considered grudgingly acceptable, but adopting any kind of philosophy or spiritual practice that would inherently contradict Christian doctrine would be considered completely unacceptable.

A modern Christian magician walks a very fine line between what is an acceptable magical practice or one that is specifically condemned. Some churches are more open minded and accepting of external practices and beliefs (such as the Unitarians) while others are quite strictly against them (such as Protestant Evangelism, Mormonism, Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christianity, Lutheran and Episcopalian Protestantism, etc.). Even the Church of England has made strict pronouncements against the practices of magic, divination and occultism, although they might not be strictly enforced. Thus a Christian magician not only moves against the grain of the foundational Christian faith, but he or she also ultimately stands alone (or in a distinct minority) and if prudent, silently so. This is why most Christian magicians that I have heard about or know espouse a Hermetic or Esoteric/Gnostic Christian religious perspective, since their practice of magic is typically unacceptable to most mainstream Christians.

That being said, this revelation appears to collapse Peregrin’s arguments that he has made because Christian magicians are not part of the mainstream variety of Christianity. They can use the themes and tropes of Christianity in their magic (as can many of us who aren’t even Christians), but they are really outside of the faith from a mainstream perspective. Therefore, they can’t claim to have solidarity with the established Christian faith nor reap the riches of its centuries of religious heritage and thereby gain its inherent spiritual grace.Solidarity is a two way street, and mainstream Christians would reject being bedfellows with Christian magicians.

Christian magicians must become revisionists and apologists for their practices and beliefs, since the body of Christian scripture and thought condemns their practices. Only a few centuries ago Christian churches would have accused magical practitioners of being heretics or apostates and would have dealt with them severely. This is no longer the case, but there is an inherent stigma for anyone who professes to be a Christian and practices magic, at least as far as the mainstream churches are concerned. It is my opinion that an esoteric or occult version of Christianity is the only kind of spiritual faith that would allow for a simultaneous practice of magic; but esotericism and occultism are not limited just to Christianity. Esotericism and occultism are, by definition, pan-religious, so someone who is an occultist or an esotericist would not be confined by Christian theology. They wouldn't be considered even nominally Christian, either.

There was a time, however, when magic and Christianity found a common but tenuous thread. Back in the Renaissance and even somewhat later, Christian magic was well represented by the traditions associated with the grimoire manuscripts and a handful of published works. If we examine this material, both the manuscripts that are now being published and the republished works from that time we will see a form of Christian magic that was pretty much comprehensive. While Europe waged terrible sectarian wars between Catholics and Protestants, the grimoire tradition was based ostensibly on Catholic traditional magical ideas and practices.

What was omitted from most of these works was the world view of Catholic magical practices that included the Mass, Benediction, votive offerings, idol worship, the basic methodology of discursive meditation and the whole of the monastic tradition of prayers, fasting, purification and consecration. It could even be conjectured that vestments, talismans, magical tools and special character sigils written on parchment (or etched on metal) were all extensions of the basic sacramental systems that were a normal part of Catholic practice. I have also shown in a previous article that the basic spirit invocations employed by magicians (and written down in the old grimoires) was based on a reverse application of the classical rite of exorcism.

It would seem that Catholic rituals and practices provided a basic foundation for the corpus of ceremonial magic, even though such practices would have been condemned by church authorities. While some like Ficino and Bruno sought to bring in the old Gods of Pagan Hermeticism, perhaps to augment or even replace Catholic theology, others just added them to the accretion of practices and beliefs that were already in vogue at the time. A case in point is the 16th century incorporation of the Olympian Spirits into planetary magic, such as was done in the grimoire, the Arbatel.

Therefore, with this in mind I can make the case that the origins for ceremonial magic are to be found in Catholic liturgy, since these rites and beliefs were available to nearly everyone, whether they were Protestant or Catholic, during the epoch of the great grimoires. However, the minds of the individuals that practiced these rites and wrote the grimoires of this period were not those of the progressive free thinkers of their time. This is particularly true since the intelligentsia of the 17th and 18th centuries had already passed over the practice of magic and considered it a quaint superstition when it had reached its zenith of popularity.

Since most of the oldest copies of the grimoire manuscripts in libraries and museums today were actually produced during the 17th and 18th centuries, we can conclude that this time period represented the high water mark for the public’s preoccupation with ceremonial magic. This interest lasted into the first half of the 19th century where it became the proclivity modern occultists. However, I can say with some authority that the spiritual demand made upon those practicing ceremonial magic at that time was to engage with their base religion in an extremely pious manner. Magicians from that time period would have represented the most conservative adherents of their religion on one hand, and the most daring, arrogant and hubristic practitioners on the other hand. Even so, it was not until the late 18th century that magicians were completely safe from persecution for practicing Christian magic, and by then, it was already becoming a dying tradition.

How ironic it is today that only the most esoteric and free-thinking religionists would ever consider performing the rites of ceremonial or ritual magic. This should indicate to everyone that the times have certainly changed people’s beliefs and spiritual practices. It would also seem to indicate that the time of the great grimoires is long past and it is likely that the mental context that these individuals employed to practice their art is also extinct. What we have left is a massive collection of various materials all of which have lost their cultural and religious context. Those who practice magic today, whatever they think they are doing, are actually in the process of creating something new that didn’t exist at all in the epoch of the great grimoires.

If magicians consider themselves Christian magicians, or Pagan magicians, Witches, Theosophists, Thelemites, Demonalators, or whatever, they are actually representing something that bears little or no resemblance to what was practiced anywhere from three to five hundred years ago when ceremonial magic was culturally relevant. Because all modern magicians had to recreate and redefine their magic so that it would function in the post modern world, they have all started at the same place, which is a veritable ground-zero of materials, practices and beliefs representing countless ages of accumulated knowledge. Still, all of that knowledge is useful only to a point, since to build a working system of magic requires the facile ability to experiment, adapt and to create.

Thus, no one magician, whether Christian or Pagan, has any kind of advantage and cannot represent themselves as a continuous line of initiation and practice drawing from the very source of their religion. The heritage of magical practices of the past belong to everyone equally today and no one can exclusively claim them as belonging to their religious creed. 

Modern mainstream Christianity is a religion that has rejected magic as unacceptable and it has also intensely resisted any theological revisionism based on esoteric perspectives or general occultism. Even Catholics have been steadily removing the magic from their liturgy and practices since Vatican II. Magic and Christianity can no longer be considered analogous spiritual systems, and we who are practitioners should understand and accept this fact. Whatever our spiritual foundation, we will never be accepted by mainstream adherents of Christianity. They will always see us as being antithetical or even completely hostile to their accepted traditions and theological tenets. Of course, this should not be a surprising revelation to anyone, particularly we who are magicians.

While Peregrin can talk about his solidarity with mainstream Christians and how he stands in alignment with the greater heritage of Christian belief and practice, the truth is that we who practice magic are all completely at odds with adherents of mainstream Christianity today. We actually have more in common with each other than differences, and certainly we have far less in common with mainstream Christians. So if we are wise we will join together in solidarity despite our minor theological differences to protect our inherent rights and civil liberties. Only in this way can we guarantee that we will be able to practice our beliefs without interference or persecution, as well as advancing our art for the coming age of trials.

Frater Barrabbas

Summer Solstice Thoughts

Summer is now officially here in the great tundra that is Minnesota, even though the Solstice is not yet arrived. The days alternate between cool and rainy, perfectly sunny and cool, and hot and steamy, with little balance in between. It’s hard to predict what the rest of the summer is going to be like at this juncture, but perhaps it might be warmer than last year. I have some plans for getting out on the water this summer, and experiencing the delights of paddling a kayak or a paddle board - we shall see. Summer days forces me to alternate between working outside in the yard and the grove, as well as keeping things maintained indoors. I have a lot of writing projects and work related tasks to complete during this period as well. Half of the year is already done, and there is much that needs to be accomplished before the short period of warm weather retreats in the face of the oncoming winter. Harsh winters make the summer days precious and infectious with their joy and zeal for spending time outside - even if it is hot and sweltering, with a very generous supply of gnats, mosquitoes, ticks and deer flies. Despite those annoying pests, I intend on enjoying the summer as best as I can, knowing that as the poets say: “and summer’s lease hath all to short a stay.”

During this month I will be presenting a series on the history of the Qabbalah and also a continuation of an analysis of the Twenty-two Pathways. This will likely take up most of the posts for the rest of this month, but I will seek to put in my two cents on various controversies and issues as they come up. I have already completed my articles on the methodologies that I use to perform invocations and evocations - hope you found them useful. Speaking of putting in my two cents, there is an issue that I would like to discuss here, particularly since it concerns a couple of posts that I made in the past.

One such scuffle is about a rather compelling issue that is being debated within the blogsphere, and it is the continuing exchange between David Griffin and his faction of the HOGD, and the Australian and New Zealand contingent, headed by Nick Farrell and Peregrin, with some occasional background heckling from Pat Zelewski. These folks are still arguing over the two articles that I posted back in March, where I discussed the three perspectives that seem to occupy and consume various individuals within the esoteric communities of the Western Mystery Tradition. Those three perspectives revolve around the practices associated with traditionalism, reconstructionism and revisionism. Often times, there can be a mixture of perspectives, such as with my own personal practice, where I engage in two paths simultaneously, which is Alexandrian traditional witchcraft and eclectic ritual magick. There is also the perspective of eclectic pragmatism. Still, I think that most people approach their practice in a pragmatic manner, using what works, discarding what doesn’t, and revising what is cumbersome and ineffective. You can find my two articles here, and here.

The essential significance of this battle royal between the above named combatants is really about whether there can be any kind of traditional approach within the Golden Dawn, or whether it is a defunct organization that can only be approximated through a reconstructive effort. I believe that both approaches are valid, and in my above two previous articles, I never said that traditionalism was better or more valid than reconstructionism. However, one thing that has been pointed out in the comments is that taking one’s approach in an aggressive manner can be hurtful and deleterious to others who may be operating within the same lore, but taking a very different perspective. Is the Golden Dawn able to support both a reconstructionist and a traditionalist approach? I believe that it is, and so both factions should be happy to operate unmolested within their sphere of influence and practice. However, when one organization attempts to attack the foundational creed of the other organization, that’s when there is trouble for the whole community.

In my second article I took a certain amount of umbrage to Nick Farrell because instead of being the good reconstructionist (in my opinion), and at some point accepting and believing in the myths and legends of the founders and their lore, he instead seeks to systematically destroy, defame and snuff out the myths and legends about Mathers and the GD organization, through which he founded his own version. Farrell has also taken it upon himself to publish material associated with the A+O inner court of the GD that could only be considered confidential and oathbound. The reason why he is doing these various nefarious deeds seems to be beyond my comprehension, since they not only hurt the Golden Dawn as a whole, but they even damage the credibility of the organization that Nick purports to represent. I liken these actions to someone poisoning a well so that no one is able to take a drink from the source. It is pernicious and shows that Nick Farrell really wants to hurt the entire Golden Dawn community. I, as an outsider, have found this activity to be disturbing and even a bit hateful.

Why do I even care? As I have said, I am an outsider to the Golden Dawn. Yet my reason for caring is that Mathers, Westcott, and even Crowley and Regardie are my heroes. They were flawed men with whom some might find fault and even discover mistakes in their work - some have even been vilified! Even so, I feel a great debt to them all because without their writings and creations, I would not have been able to invent the system of magick that I currently use and enjoy. So for that reason, I honor these individuals and feel a great esteem for the organizations that they founded. It’s my hope that someday I can perhaps believe that I have accomplished even a small part of what they were able to do in their lifetimes. I am humbled by the product of their work and I acknowledge the gift that they gave to the world, and to me. We can talk about their errors, vices, follies and we can disparage them, but they are luminaries in the history of magick, and we are but small men and women who are seeking to find a way in the world guided by the light that they have provided us.

As a traditional Alexandrian witch, what would my associates think of me if I wrote books defaming Alex Sanders, declaring that he wasn’t ever initiated and elevated as a High Priest into the Gardnerian tradition, and that he stole a Book of Shadows from his sponsoring coven, and from that, illicitly started his own tradition? If I said that Alex was a fraud and that his whole tradition was a poor and illegitimate simulacrum of Gardnerian witchcraft, and that because of this I felt compelled to publish my Book Shadows and other lineage related materials, I suspect that my fellow Alexandrians would be appalled at my words and actions. I would be branded an oath breaker and cast out of the tradition, and few would want to have anything to do with me. This has happened to other individuals in the craft, and I don’t need to mention any names at this point. I also believe that if I publicly stated that my tradition was a scam which Alex pulled off for a gullible craft hungry community, who would want to receive an initiation from me into that so-called “fake” tradition? Amazingly, these accusation have been made by a minority of Gardnerians against Alex Sanders and the Alexandrian tradition of witchcraft.

Of course, Alex Sanders was completely legitimate, even if the story about his grandmother initiating him wasn’t true. Alex was a real and true witch, and the early photographs and films that captured his work demonstrate how he sought, in an innovative manner, to merge high magick with practical earth based witchcraft. Alex Sanders is another supremely great hero of mine. Was he a perfect exemplar of enlightened practice and behavior - absolutely not! He was a complex individual, with virtues and flaws all mixed together. I never got to meet Alex, and for that I am deeply regretful, since he was one great occultist, witch and magician that I could have, and would have, loved to meet.

As an Alexandrian traditionalist, I safeguard my oathbound secrets and lore, whether or not any of it has ever been published or could be found on the internet. It is an important matter of honor, integrity and ethics, and these are the very qualities that I hold sacred, which I feel are very important to one following such a traditionalist path. Therefore, I can relate to David Griffin and Frater S.R. who act and behave in a similar manner with their organization of the Golden Dawn. However, I have found that Nick Farrell appears to lack any of these qualities, and he doesn’t care if he offends or hurts the practices, sensibilities or the beliefs of those in his community who are faithfully following a traditional perspective.

Just recently, Peregrin has entered into the fray with a recent article, which you can find here. He has taken issue with both David and S.R., who have translated their anger and hurt into humor by comparing Farrell and Zelewski with the Star Trek enemies called the Borg. I suspect that nearly everyone knows who the Borg are, so I don’t have to waste any time defining them. I can’t really blame them for making this analogy, since it was a way of dealing with what they see as an aggressive form of reconstructionism, where Farrell’s faction is seeking to completely negate the foundation upon which the Golden Dawn is established. As I have stated, these actions not only hurt other factions of the Golden Dawn, but they also discredit Nick and his organization as well. Still, Nick continues this line of aggressive behavior in his writings, and he appears to be backed up by Pat Zelewski. Peregrin pretends to be impartial and declares that David and S.R. are guilty of behaving in bad faith and seeking to hurt Farrell’s reputation with a slanderous campaign of comparing him to the Borg. It would seem that Peregrin hasn’t been following all of the exchanges that have been going on between these two fractious factions, and I suspect that he doesn’t see the humor in this depiction, either. It’s done to deflect a real sense of outrage and anger, and I see that as constructive.

As an outsider, it would seem to me that Farrell is seeking to poison the well and ignore any credible critique of his recent published work, in fact he is arrogant and quite insulting about it. Of course, what Peregrin is really doing is just fanning the flames, which seems to be his habit.  He does this in such a manner that it becomes quite obvious that he cares nothing for the HOGD organization and what they are seeking to do, with their honorable efforts to re-establish a link with the secret chiefs and inaugurate a third order. Peregrin compares David to someone who wants to be the Pope of the Golden Dawn. Of course that is absurd, since he has to answer to others more elevated and advanced than himself - those secret chiefs, who are not secretive to him. David has obligations, both to those below him, and to those who are above him. If he has made some radical changes to his version Golden Dawn tradition, he has done so with their permission and guidance. Whether we believe that the secret chiefs are legitimate, I can state for a fact that they aren’t fake or imaginary. David doesn’t operate outside of his authority, since that authority is vested in him from others, and could be taken away just as easily.

I found Peregrin's long winded article to be somewhat convoluted and even a bit confusing. He conflates tradition with a small “t” with Tradition with a large “T,” and also goes outside of the narrow scope of my original posts, which were confined to esoteric organizations operating within the Western Mystery Tradition (with a capital “T”). I won’t go too deeply into critiquing this article, you can read it for yourself and see if my comments are reasonable. David Griffin has responded to Peregrin’s article rather quite well, and you can find his response here.

My final word on this whole issue (and that means that I will have nothing more to say about it) is that peace can reign between these different factions using different approaches and perspectives if Farrell will stop seeking to defame Mathers, declaring that the Golden Dawn is a fraudulent organization and cease from publishing sensitive and confidential materials. The damage has already been done, but I think that things can continue in a peaceful manner if Nick just stops acting in a cavalier manner and doing any more damage to the Golden Dawn’s reputation. We don’t need to see the secret documents of the A+O and we don’t need to treat Mathers in a completely disreputable manner. I have no interest in buying any of Nick Farrell’s books because I want to keep my heroes intact and held up high, even if, in reality, they were guilty of the sins of being imperfect human beings.

Frater Barrabbas