Wiccan and Christian Doctrine


In the interest of religious tolerance and societal conciliation, we try 
to find something positive to concentrate on when attempting to 
understand the beliefs of others. This has historically seemed to be a 
more effective way to get along with persons who possess alternative 
ideas about the universe. Stubborn adherence to a set of exclusionary
rules, ones we were typically indoctrinated into from an early age,
has proven much less effective.

Witchcraft, as a practice and way of life, has existed for several 
millennia. Wicca, as a specific witchcraft-based tradition, has only 
existed since the 1950's. Many people confuse Pagans with Wiccans; 
a short edification on this is that all Wiccans are Pagans, but not all 
Pagans are Wiccans. Basically, Paganism encompasses several different
earth-based religions, and Wicca is a specific one that employs
witchcraft in its ritual and practice.

For a long time, the standard Christian response to seeing someone 
wear a pentacle pendant or hearing individuals identify themselves as 
Wiccan, was to immediately banish those individuals to Satan-worshiping
status. As time has passed, the public has become less ignorant
regarding the absence of an entity named Satan in Wiccan lore. This
is possibly a sagacious misdirection. Pointing out the historical 
misfortune that the Wiccans' "Horned god" was inaccurately ascribed 
the identity of Satan by the Christian church does not negate the fact 
that Wiccans incorporate the practice of witchcraft in their religion 
and lifestyle.

Of course, Wiccans don't deny this practice of witchcraft; they are 
openly proud of their metaphysical tinkering. This may or may not be 
offensive to a worshiper of the god of Abraham, as the Old Testament
clearly warns the followers of the Judeo-Christian god that "wizards"
and witches are not to be consulted or tolerated in one's immediate
environment. The New Testament also casts "sorcery" in a negative
light.

Nevertheless, all things considered, I had previously believed that the 
core tenet of Wiccan belief, called the Wiccan Rede, was just another 
version of the Christian Golden Rule. This made it easier for me to 
perceive a belief that was different than mine as a positive one. I 
strongly hold that loving others means more than merely expressing 
the sentiment from a pew on Sunday. When someone cherishes a 
fundamental belief regarding existence that differs from mine, I
don't automatically adopt a reaction of dismissal or avoidance. Nor
do I feel the need to "enlighten" them to my spiritual choices.

However, one recent evening I was thinking deeply on this subject. 
Something occurred to me, seemingly insignificant at first, but as 
time passed, it emerged as an insidious fault in what I originally 
thought was an altruistic ideal.

The Golden Rule:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

The Wiccan Rede:
"An it harm none, do what thou wilt."

There are, of course, many variations of both of these, and the 
original texts that inspired them are merely similar, not transposed 
here verbatim. Nevertheless, these are the currently most popular 
versions of the two tenets. On the surface, when one seeks to 
embrace tolerance, these two statements seem virtually identical in 
their primary intent. But...

Look closer.

The contents of the Golden Rule are a call to action. The reader (or 
listener) is instructed to do something; more specifically, to do 
something to others. The "something" may be assumed to be positive,
as the vast majority of human beings are not interested in having
bad things done to them.

The contents of the Wiccan Rede appear to be intimating the same 
thing, but there is a subtle difference that evades the cursory glance.

The Wiccan Rede is also a call to action ("do what thou wilt"), but 
exactly what sort of action? A more modern way to phrase the creed 
would be to say:

"As long as you don't hurt anyone, do whatever you want to do."

Sounds pretty good at first hearing. In fact, this is the most popular 
way to address personal interactions in our advanced and free 
civilization. I mean, who can find fault in admonishing people to do 
whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone? That sort of 
me-centered, subjective approach, cleverly posing as altruism, is a 
core moral principle of the most recent generations in the developed 
world.

The subtle difference that disturbs me is that while the Wiccan Rede 
advocates the avoidance of harm to others, the Golden Rule directs 
us to actually do something good to others. See the difference?

The act of merely doing whatever you please, but making sure you 
don't hurt anyone in the process is certainly not a negative concept in 
itself, but it also doesn't spur anyone to do unselfish deeds for 
others. All it accomplishes is to keep you one step away from being 
in the karmic dog house. Regardless, if the entire world was to follow 
the Wiccan Rede, we would surely have no theft, no rape, no 
murder, no war, etc. A positive result indeed.

However, if the entire planet was to follow the Golden Rule instead, 
the collective acts of kindness from all of us toward each other would 
exponentially net us an earthly "heaven." One may astutely observe 
that simply respecting each other would pale in comparison to the 
existence of a worldwide, human-produced paradise of people 
continually doing good deeds for each other without anticipation of 
reciprocation.

Thus, what appears to be an insignificant variance in verbal 
expression, is in truth a fundamental difference in how a person 
views human beings and his or her responsibilities to them.