In Part One of this series we briefly examined modern and contemporary
witchcraft, discussing some of the major beliefs of this syncretistic
movement. The present article will further expound on witchcraft, and also
critique it from a biblical, metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical
basis.
It is essential to keep in mind that this movement encompasses a wide
range of practices and beliefs. Consequently some of the critiques
presented in this article may require some adaptation or modification in
order to be applicable to certain variations of belief within the broader
system of witchcraft and neopaganism. Nonetheless, the body of critiques
presented here apply _substantially_ to most witches and neopagans.
*Glossary*
*epistemology:* The study of the origin and nature of knowledge. Deals
with questions like: What can we know? How do we know it? How do we know
it is _true?_ To what extent can we know it? And so forth.
*ontology:* As used here ontology is a branch of metaphysics (which in
turn is a branch of philosophy -- _see_ Part One) and, more specifically,
is the study of the nature or essence of Being -- the One -- and its
relationship to creation and vice versa.
*panentheism:* The view that the world is _contained in_ and is a
_manifestation of_ the divine. Although the divine is immanent _in_ and
_to_ the world, it still transcends the universe to some degree. As the
human body is to the soul or mind, so the universe is to the divine.
*problem of evil:* The origin and existence of evil in the world.
Traditionally, there are three main categories of evil: metaphysical,
moral, and physical or natural. Blindness, deafness, and lameness are
examples of _metaphysical_ evil; cruelty and malevolence are examples of
_moral_ evil; and earthquakes, droughts, and tornados are examples of
_physical_ evil. All moral evil is the direct or indirect result of moral
agents' free wills or ability to choose. Physical and metaphysical evil
may or may not be the result of moral agents' choices.
*syncretism:* The combining or merging and synthesizing of religions or
religious beliefs, practices, and philosophies. This results in new or
hybrid religions that are composed of diverse elements of the religions
from which they were derived.
*MAGICAL MANIPULATION*
Many witches do not believe in spirits, and most if not all reject
belief in a literal Devil or demons. Naturally, therefore, they reject the
idea that sorcery and divination are accomplished by the agency of evil
spirits. Many offer naturalistic explanations for the working of magic and
divination and other "psychic technologies." On the whole, the occult
community today has expanded its definition of "the natural" to
incorporate elements that were earlier considered supernatural, placing
them in the category of the super- or paranormal instead. Yet, they are
still involved in the "old ways" -- that is, the occult.
*Now
You See it, Now You Don't*
What has happened in the occult world in the past two or more decades
is just what C. S. Lewis described in his classic work, _The Screwtape
Letters_ -- which portrays an experienced demon (Screwtape) writing
letters of advice to a novice demon (Wormwood):
I have great hopes that we shall learn in due time how to
emotionalize and mythologize their science to such an extent that what
is, in effect, a belief in us, (though not under that name) will creep
in while the human mind remains closed to belief in the Enemy [i.e.,
God]. The "Life Force," the worship of sex, and some aspects of
Psychoanalysis, may here prove useful. If once we can produce our
perfect work -- the Materialist Magician, the man, not using, but
veritably worshipping, what he vaguely calls "Forces" while denying the
existence of "spirits" -- then the end of the war will be in sight.[1]
Lewis's insights on the insidious strategy of Satan -- the archenemy of
our souls -- appear to have been right on target in regard to modern
occultism.[2]
When observations like Lewis's are made, however, it is not uncommon to
hear remarks to the effect that Christians attribute to the supernatural
everything they cannot comprehend -- if it cannot be understood, it _must_
be the Devil. However, this charge is unwarranted.
While it is unfortunately true that some Christians tend to
hyperspiritualize events and exclaim "the Devil did it," or "the Devil
made me do it," this is certainly _not_ the case with all. Many Christians
have pointed out alleged demonic (or divine) occurrences which were -- in
fact -- instances of fraud, anomalies, psychosomatic phenomena, auto- or
heterosuggestion, and so forth.[3] Such Christians have demystified
baffling occurrences and accounted for them by their natural causes.
*Black, White, or Neutral?*
The critical question is, What is the actual source or causal agent(s)
of the occult (i.e., of divination, sorcery, and spiritism)? Some witches
like to make a distinction between black and white magic/sorcery and
divination. They claim that sorcery or divination performed for unselfish
and/or "benevolent" purposes (to help others) is good. Thus, magic done
with good intentions and desired results is classified as _white_ magic.
Conversely, sorcery performed with selfish and/or malevolent motives and
means (to harm others) is classified as _black_ magic.
Other witches deny the validity of this distinction or find it useless.
Since they regard magic as a natural force they view it as _morally
neutral_ (i.e., not intrinsically good or evil). Like electricity, some
say, magic can be used _for_ good or evil -- but just as one would not
speak of black or white electricity, one should not do so with magic
either.
Christians too deny the validity of a distinction between black and
white magic or divination, albeit for entirely different reasons. Whether
called black, white, negative, or positive -- any such distinction is
illegitimate. Where the Christian and all witches disagree is on the
ultimate source, the actual identity, the who or what behind the scenes of
the occult.
It is the Christian's conviction that despite all their magical
theories, witches (and all other occultists) have failed to grasp the true
source of the occult. I therefore offer the following biblical perspective
on their beliefs and practices.
*WHAT SAYS THE WORD?*
Since witches do not generally accept the teachings of the Bible, we
will not spend much time on a biblical critique.[4] However, even a
cursory review of Scripture is enough to demonstrate that the beliefs and
practices of witches are utterly incompatible with the Bible. Witches who
honestly examine the Scriptural testimony will have no choice but to admit
that the Bible condemns their beliefs and practices.
In fact, Scripture gives a blanket condemnation of _all_ forms of the
occult -- divination, sorcery, and spiritism -- in diverse passages
throughout the Old and New Testaments. For instance, in Deuteronomy
18:10-12 God's view of occultism is expressed in the following warning:
"Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the
fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in
witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who
consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the
LORD..."
If this were the only biblical passage dealing with this issue, it
would be clear that all forms of the occult are denounced by God. Yet,
this is only one of many condemnatory references (see, e.g., Lev. 19:26,
31; 20:6; 2 Kings 17:10-17; 21:1-6; 23:4-7, 24-25; 2 Chron. 33:6; Acts
13:6-12; 16:18; Gal. 5:20; Rev. 9:21).
Moreover, numerous forms of god and goddess worship are explicitly
condemned in Scripture. There are, for example, a multitude of
denunciatory references to worshipping or invoking the various gods and
goddesses of the Near Eastern religions: the Assyrian and Babylonian
Ishtar, the Ashtoreths of the Canaanites (e.g., the Sidonians and
Phoenicians), and so forth (e.g., Deut. 16:21; Judg. 2:10-14; 10:6-16; 1
Sam. 7:3-4; 12:10; 1 Kings 11:33; 2 Kings 23:13-15). Ashtoreth is
described in 2 Kings 23:13 as "the vile goddess of the Sidonians" (NIV),
or -- as the KJV and NASB translate it -- "the abomination of the
Sidonians." The Bible speaks out not only against worshipping, invoking,
and consulting pagan gods, but also against the idea that human beings --
individually or collectively -- are divine.
In one sense, witches are right about the antiquity of some of their
beliefs and practices. The belief that human beings are or can become
divine is a good example. In the first book of the Bible (Gen. 3:5) we
find the original proposal -- made by the serpent -- of the idea that we
could become "like God." But Scripture emphatically states that there is
only one being who is God (Deut. 6:4; 32:39; Isa. 43:10-11; 44:6-8;
45:5-6, 14, 22; 46:9; Jer. 10:10-11; Mark 12:29-31; 1 Tim. 2:5; James
2:19). Though there are many so-called gods or goddesses -- in the sense
that people worship entities conceived by their imaginations -- there is
only one God _by nature_ (1 Cor. 8:4-5; 10:20; Gal. 4:8). As one astute
observer remarked: "There are two foundational facts of human
enlightenment: (1) There is a God; and (2) You are not He."
Humankind has not only demonstrated a great proclivity towards
self-deification, it has also been strongly inclined to confuse God's
creation (or _His_ creative process) for the Creator Himself (Rom.
1:21-25). This is certainly the case with those entangled in the teachings
of modern witchcraft.
Some witches have actually tried to reconcile the above passages and
others with their own practices. Nonetheless, the Bible -- particularly in
the original languages -- renders any such maneuvering futile.[5] We
therefore ask that witches at least acknowledge that the Bible in no sense
condones their practices, but rather expressly condemns them.
*The Source of the Force*
Like a drunkard who continually returns to the bottle, so mankind's
bent toward self-deification and creation worship has been irrepressible,
as has been its blindness towards its own deplorable predicament due to
the ravaging effects of sin. To wit, witches are deceived _not only_ about
the inherent falsity of their often sincerely held beliefs (see Prov.
14:12), but as well about the _source_ of their misguided belief system.
Despite what witches claim, witchcraft originates from Satan -- the
"father of lies" and the "god of this world," and from man's corrupt
nature. Thus, though witches do not acknowledge the Devil's existence,
they are nonetheless (all the more so) trapped in the talons of his
tyrannical grip (2 Tim. 2:25-26).
To witches who believe that magic is a natural, neutral force or power,
Christians reply that it is rather empowered by "the prince of the power
of the air that now works in the children of disobedience" (Eph. 2:2).
As such, whether witches acknowledge it or not, _all_ occultism
involves interaction and trafficking with demonic spirits (_see_ Lev.
17:7; 20:6; Deut. 32:17; Ps. 106:36-39; 1 Cor. 10:20-21; Rev. 9:20-21).[6]
As W. Foerster comments, "For Paul witchcraft is meddling with
demons....But there can also be intercourse with demons in the normal
heathen cultus (1 C. 10:20f.)....While idols are nothing...demons stand
behind paganism."[7] Or, as Bietenhard informs us, "Since dealing with
demons lies behind sorcery...it is rejected (Gal. 5:20)....Heathen worship
brings men into contact with demons (1 Cor. 10:20f.), for demons stand
behind paganism in general (Rev. 9:20)."[8]
This is why occultism in all its forms is condemned in the Bible.
Occultists therefore fall under the judgment of God for participating in
such inexcusable activities (Rom. 1:18-25; Eph. 4:18-19; Rev. 21:8;
22:15).
Since witches generally do not accept the Bible, and because there are
other inherent weaknesses and failings in their world view --
metaphysical, epistemological, and ethical -- we can and should critique
witchcraft in these areas as well. This I shall do in the remainder of
this article.
*METAPHYSICAL MALADIES*
In Part One I discussed the importance of polytheism as understood by
witches and the related concept of an "open" metaphysic -- that is, the
position that there are multiple levels of and meanings to reality. This
is expressed in the belief that there is "no one way or right religion for
all," and no "one truth."[9] We are told by witches that all religions
lead in the same direction; they simply take different paths to get there.
*Existential Essence*
Witches further believe that everything one experiences is in some
sense real and _therefore_ true. Since reality is multiple and diverse,
and since the possible levels or planes of meaning are infinite, there is
always _more_ to experience. We should therefore remain open-minded and
tolerant of differing views.[10]
Witches who think along these lines hold that everyone has a _part of_
the truth, for every person operates from a limited subjective perspective
of the world.[11] And since no one has an absolute knowledge or
perspective of reality (ultimate reality is inaccessible to us), all views
and experiences must be seen as equally valid. One view is as good or true
as another (minimally, it is true for that individual). Reality, then, is
a matter of perspective -- and everyone has a different one.
*Romantic Rationalizations*
Christians certainly grant that witches have the right to believe
whatever they choose, as much as we might disagree with their views.
However, we reject that logic and reason should be ignored when we
encounter two different views that are obviously incompatible.
We also grant that life is complicated and diverse, and that people can
and do have an incalculable number of experiences. However, this does not
prevent us from knowing many significant truths and facts about ultimate
reality. We need to distinguish between knowing _all_ about life or
ultimate reality, which no human being is capable of, and knowing _some_
true things about it. These are two different issues. Without this
distinction, we could not make _any_ meaningful statements about reality.
*Experience and Truth*
Many witches fail to recognize a key distinction regarding the validity
of experiences. Over and over again, one finds a failure on the witches'
part to distinguish between _real_ experiences that people actually have
versus experiences that are _true._ For instance, a man could have an
experience or sensation of falling. The feeling might be quite intense.
Upon awakening from his sleep, however, he realizes that he was not
falling at all but lying on his bed. Did he have the experience of
_feeling_ like he was falling? Yes. Was he _really_ falling? No! The
latter question is not "Did he have this experience?" but "was he _really_
falling?" These are two entirely different issues. To confuse the two is
to commit the fallacy of equivocation.
We do not dispute that witches have many experiences that may _appear_
to support their religion, but we must ask: Do these experiences really
prove their assertions or only prove that they had some type of
experience? Appealing to experience only establishes that one might have
_had_ one, not that one's world view is _true._
The idea that each world view is like one more flower in the garden of
life is a nice sentiment, but it does not fit the real world. In fact, it
is nothing short of metaphysical madness. To paraphrase and adapt a quip
by Edgar Sheffield Brightman, "In a world where Christianity and
witchcraft are both true, we do not have a universe, but a cosmic nut
house!"
As we shall see presently, the metaphysical framework of the witches'
world has important implications in the realm of testing truth claims.
*EPISTEMOLOGY*
With their emphasis on experience and their belief in the intuitive and
existential nature of truth, witches fall into diverse epistemological
sinkholes on the road to truth. One finds a consistent appeal to "knowing"
_not_ by the intellect but by experience and "intuition." One also finds
an implicit or explicit depreciation or denial of the principles or laws
of thought.
For example, Starhawk -- a popularizer of the witchcraft/neopagan world
view -- disdains what she terms "any beliefs which would...deny the
authority of experience...," thus reinforcing what she calls "the lie that
there is only one truth."[12] In the same way, Margot Adler -- another
popular neopagan writer -- argues for the superiority of experience over
dogma, and metaphor and myth over theology, doctrine, and creed.[13]
Although one often hears witches downplay or outright deny doctrines,
dogma, and beliefs -- still, they too vehemently champion _their_
beliefs.[14] To say that experience and ritual are more important than
doctrine _is itself a doctrine._ Besides, how is it possible to have
rituals in the first place if there are no beliefs to give them meaning?
In short: no beliefs, then no rituals. Additionally, one must assert
doctrines or beliefs and use logic to even refute the idea of doctrine.
*Is Logic Necessary?*
Many people berate the use of logic and talk as if they could think and
do without it. The fact is, however, that it is impossible _not_ to use
logic. Should a person attempt to refute logic, he or she must use logic
in the very process of refuting it -- thereby refuting his or her own
argument. Let us be clear on this: one must _use_ logic to _disprove_
logic. For instance, suppose someone asserts that magic and experience are
beyond logic and reason (i.e., logic does not apply to these realms). The
person making this assertion has failed to note that this statement is
itself predicated upon the use of logic -- that is, logic had to be
utilized to even formulate it. Logic therefore _does_ apply.
Due to limited space, we will consider just one of the primary laws of
thought -- the law of non-contradiction.[15] This principle affirms that a
statement cannot both be true and false (A cannot be non-A) at the same
time and in the same sense. For example, it cannot be the case that one
both can _and_ cannot (at the same time and in the same manner) safely
cross a busy street. It is one or the other, but not both. If one says it
_is_ both _and_ attempts to keep his (or her) actions consistent with his
words, he will end up being run over. When people fail to yield to logic,
they will also end up being run over by their own arguments (i.e., they
assert false, self-defeating, and/or meaningless statements).
Some (many?) witches try to avoid the anvil of logic, but to no
avail.[16] A case in point is Stewart Farrar, who approvingly quoted C. G.
Jung's assertion that "everything human is relative."[17] To which we
respond: Is this statement relative too, since it was uttered by a human?
If it is _not_ relative, then the statement is not true. But if the
statement itself _is_ relative, that would mean there are times when it is
not true -- when some things human are _not_ relative, and are hence
_absolute._ But this would contradict Jung's original statement. Thus, it
is both false and self-defeating. Clearly, the sword of logic cuts both
ways.
*Magical Immunity*
Witches often attempt to defend their magic castle from the battering
rams of logic by erecting supposedly impenetrable walls.[18] Different
explanations and rationalizations are offered to protect their views.
These include the aforementioned depreciation, denial, or alleged
inapplicability of logic and objective standards for discerning truth;
postulating diverse planes or levels of reality and meaning; dichotomizing
between emotions and the intellect, or between normal versus altered
states of consciousness; and a number of other distinctions. To be fair,
many of these attempts are simply sincere efforts to understand the
mysterious world of the occult. Nonetheless, such attempts appear to be
cases of special pleading and of employing double standards -- resulting
in an assumed immunity from the normal criteria of truth-testing used to
verify or refute a world view.[19]
No matter what explanations and defenses are used, however, experience
and intuitive feelings are often an essential element of the witches'
world view validation -- "It feels right; I have truly experienced it."
Witches "know" via powerful spiritual and emotional experiences that their
views are true. Therefore, they can at times affirm apparently
contradictory assertions.
Again, regardless of which of the above distinctions are used to
advance or protect the witches' world view, _the distinctions themselves
are based upon the validity of logic._ Try as they may, witches simply
cannot _not_ use logic.
Our pagan friends are, so to speak, "up the metaphysical creek,"
without a trustworthy epistemological "paddle" -- and are caught in a
whirlpool of subjective circularity that makes one's head spin. Witches
cannot appeal to logic when it suits them and ignore it when it refutes
them and still expect to be taken seriously.
As we shall now see, the use of logic in the categories of "both/and"
as opposed to "either/or" have implications not just for _thinking_ but
for _ethics_ as well.
*ETHICS*
Witches do not believe in the concept of sin as defined by orthodox
Christianity. Sin is viewed as an outdated concept that is "only a tool
used to shackle the minds and actions of people." The only "sin" or evil
is that of being unbalanced and out of harmony or estranged from oneself,
others, the varied life forms, and Mother Earth. As there is no sin or
divine retribution to be saved from, "salvation" has only to do with
attaining and maintaining harmony with the above.[20]
To their credit, many witches consistently appeal to their ethical code
-- the Wiccan Rede: "an it harm none, do what ye will."[21] They further
claim not to use their occultic abilities for malevolent purposes since
they believe (1) that any evil done to another will come back upon the
perpetrator threefold or more, and (2) in some form of reincarnation (and
the moral law of karma which governs it). Some, such as Donald Frew,
incorporate other guidelines to determine the rightness of an action, such
as the general consensus of the witchcraft community, common sense, the
laws of the state, science, and pragmatic considerations.[22]
While the aforementioned is true, the Wiccan Rede is not consistent
with -- nor does it logically or ontologically follow from -- the world
views most commonly held by witches: pantheism and panentheism.[23] It
must derive, then, from someone or something external to or independent of
the universe or Goddess/God or Life Force itself. But how can this be? In
both pantheism and panentheism, _nothing_ is outside or independent of the
One, and even death and evil are an intrical and necessary part of
reality.[24] The witches' ethical code is therefore inconsistent with
their metaphysical world view.
This dilemma is reflected in the teachings of Starhawk. For example,
though she does not think destruction is necessarily evil, she states:
"The nature of the Goddess is never single...She is light and the
darkness, the patroness of love and death, who makes _all_ possibilities.
She brings both comfort and pain."[25] Elsewhere she says, "As Crone, She
is the dark face of life, which demands death and sacrifice...In
Witchcraft, the dark, waning aspect of the God is not evil -- it is a
vital part of the natural cycle."[26] This aspect of the divine
manifesting itself in polarities is echoed by almost all (if not all)
witches. Erica Jong tells us that "Satanists...accept the Christian
duality between good and evil; pagans do not...Pagans see good and evil as
intimately allied, in fact, indivisible. They conceive of deities as
having several aspects -- creation, destruction, sustenance -- rather than
externalizing all destruction and destructiveness ('evil') in the form of
devils."[27]
*The Problems of Life*
Whether witches realize it or not, these views raise some very
problematic ethical issues: (1) Where does the Wiccan Rede derive from?
(2) If there is "no one right religion, way, or truth for all," then why
is this rule (the Wiccan Rede) universal? How do we know that witches are
not just trying to impose _their_ rule on us to "shackle our minds and
actions"? (3) How do witches account for the origin and existence of evil
and suffering?
Space forbids us from addressing each of these questions, but the third
should -- indeed _must_ -- be addressed.
*Evil*
In _Dreaming the Dark,_ Starhawk attempts to grapple with ethical
issues and the problem of evil: "Evil is a concept that cannot be
separated from the stories of duality. Power-over, violence,
coercion...are not evil in the sense of being part of a force in direct
opposition to good. Instead, we can see them as mistakes, processes born
of chance that spread because they have served their purposes....The
problem of evil is really a problem of randomness."[28] Other witches
appeal to reincarnation and the law of Karma to explain the existence of
some evil and suffering. Raymond Buckland asserts, "For its own evolution,
it is necessary that the soul experience all things in life. It seems the
most sensible, most logical, [_sic_] explanation of much that is found in
life...Why should one be born crippled, another fit and strong?...if not
because we must eventually experience all things"[29] (elipses in
original). Sybil Leek offers similar reasons for the existence and
necessity of evil in the world.[30]
*Naturalistic
Fallacies*
The above two explanations create more problems than they solve. For
instance, if one must experience all in life (as Buckland suggests), does
this include being abused, tortured, and so forth?[31]
It logically follows from such a view that whatever is, ought to be.
This is known in ethics as the _naturalistic fallacy,_ as it confuses "the
way things are" with how they morally should be. Hence, what about the
child born with crippling birth defects who dies an agonizing death within
two years? Should we respond, "Oh well, whatever is, _ought_ to be" and
thus just accept it as the way things are? No, even a witch could not
consistently live by this approach. The witches world view logically and
ontologically justifies _any_ condition or conduct.
This results in an inability to morally distinguish between good and
evil, right and wrong. With such a naturalistic approach one can only
describe the way things _are_ (e.g., the drink is hot or cold). One cannot
make a moral evaluation. If life and death, comfort and pain, joy and
sorrow, are inherent to the very nature of the world, then how can one
call any action morally wrong, including burning witches? It can't be
done. But witches _do_ say some actions are wrong. Or are they simply
saying that they do not _prefer_ certain actions? Hardly! Intuitively,
they/we know certain things are wrong -- such as torturing witches,
confiscating their property, abusing children, and so forth. They do not
say these things are merely unpleasant or inconvenient; they insist that
they are _wrong._
Christians, then, have every reason to ask how witches answer the
problem of the existence of evil. This is a perplexing problem, and merely
dismissing it will not solve it.
*The Problem of Evil*
There are conspicuously few in-depth discussions of the problem of evil
in neopagan literature. Many witches seem ignorant of this issue, or --
for a number of reasons -- do not believe it applies to their particular
world view. For these, the existence of evil is not a problem, because
they do not conceive of the Goddess/God or Life Force as being omniscient,
omnipotent, and omnibenevolent. These witches explain the problem of evil
in one of three ways: (1) they deny that evil exists; (2) they appeal to
finite godism (or goddessism); or (3) they appeal to humankind's free
will. Let us briefly consider each of these.
Does evil exist? Is evil only an illusion? Or is evil _not really evil_
but just unfortunate circumstances? These views are delusions.[32] To say
evil does not exist is to be blind to reality, for evil not only exists --
_it is all around us._ From cruelty, corruption, calamity, flood and
famine, disease and drought, hatred, war, suffering, misery, pain,
injustices, rape, murder, and on and on -- _evil exists._ Evil is a fact
of life. And it is not just a case of "unfortunate" circumstances or the
"breaks of life." It is _unfortunate_ when one gets a flat tire at night
on a country road in a rain storm. It is rank _evil_ to kill six million
Jews as Hitler did. The death of human beings is the epitome of evil and
is not "natural" but is the greatest nemesis we face. The existence of
evil delivers a debilitating blow to the witches' world view.
But, some witches counter, the Goddess/God and/or Life Force is/are
finite -- that is, not omnibenevolent, omniscient, or omnipotent. Thus,
they/it cannot be held responsible for evil.
The defense of finite godism, however, is wishful thinking.[33] Even
finite godism/goddessism must grapple with the existence of evil. If the
Goddess and/or God are finite, this does not excuse the evil _it/they_
have birthed. Do we hold a finite inflictor of suffering upon humanity --
like a Hitler, Stalin, or Mao -- any less culpable simply because they
were not infinite in their abilities? Clearly, the finite godism appeal
will not exonerate the Goddess and God.
At this point, some will answer that evil derives from humanity's
failure to live in harmony with nature and/or from exercising free will.
But this cannot be the answer either. Since the Goddess/God or Life Force
itself contains or causes both life _and_ death, good _and_ evil, how can
it be said that one is not in harmony with them/it if one commits or
causes suffering or death?
We acknowledge that free will might account for _some_ of the evil in
the world. At best, it might explain evil that derives from one human
being forcing his or her will upon another. But it certainly cannot
account for _physical_ or _natural_ evil.
Where, then, does evil come from? What is its origin? According to the
witch's world view, it can derive logically and ontologically only from
the Goddess/God or primal Life Force. Are not they (or it) the ultimate
source of all? If they (or it) created everything, and everything is a
part or manifestation of them, then they are the source and origin of
evil. If one says that the Goddess/God are _not_ ultimate, then where did
they come from? Who created them or gave them their free will or nature?
Depending on whether a witch is a pantheist, panentheist, and/or
polytheist, there are only so many possible explanations for the origin
and existence of evil. The problems inherent in a polytheistic,
pantheistic, or panentheistic perspective on the problem of evil are too
numerous to list.[34] However, we will address some of the more
significant ones.
In a pantheistic or panentheistic universe, witches must realize that,
ontologically, evil emanates or flows naturally and necessarily from the
very nature of the ultimate Life Force. Creation and the existence of evil
are synonymous and simultaneous.[35] This entails that suffering, death,
evil, and so forth are part of the Goddess/God's very essence or nature.
Good and evil are both aspects of the One. _All_ is contained in, arises
out of, or is a manifestation of the absolute universal Life Force or
principle. Evil is ultimately and necessarily part of the One which is
all. Therefore, in one sense or another, the universal Life Force is
responsible for all the pain, suffering, and evil that has, does, or ever
will exist.
In a polytheistic framework, the Goddess(es) and God(s) are no more
praiseworthy. From a brief survey of history and the evidence around us,
we would have to conclude that these divine beings are blithering,
bungling idiots -- sort of the Inspector Clouseaus of the cosmos. They are
either unwilling or unable because of their limitations to eliminate evil.
They should be held in contempt inasmuch as they are responsible for much
of the evil of our world which they supposedly created.
Whether in a polytheistic, pantheistic, or panentheistic universe, we
can have no assurance that the Goddess/God or Life Force _can_ or _wants
to_ defeat evil. Nor can we be sure that this is even an appropriate
question, since in the latter two worlds evil is part of the One's very
nature. Therefore, evil will no more cease to exist than these entities or
the Life Force itself. In other words, evil is eternal -- it will always
be with us.[36] It is eternal because it is either an aspect of the very
nature of the "divinity" which creates and composes all (pantheism,
panentheism), or these deities are too limited to permanently accomplish
the task (polytheism). Only an infinite and benevolent _personal_ God
could and will banish evil from the universe.[37]
This alleged Goddess/God or Life Force is not worthy of reverence but
of our rage. It is responsible for all or nearly all the pain, suffering,
and sorrow that has existed or ever will exist. Who would want to worship
or admire such a Goddess/God? This is an affront to our moral
sensibilities. The optimism of witches and neopagans is not justified;
despair ought to be their response, and a longing for the death of this
alleged Goddess and her tyrannical rule.
The problem of evil is an acute dilemma -- indeed, an Achilles' heel
for witches and neopagans. In light of this issue -- and the witches'
emphasis on the joyful celebration of life -- we must ask: Do they simply
ignore evil because it is not joyous? Remember, the goddess is not only
_mother_ and _maiden,_ but _crone_ as well.
*POSTSCRIPT FOR
PAGANS*
The world is full of wonder, beauty, and joy. This same world, however,
contains paralyzing heartache, agonizing pain, misery, and the stench of
death. Let us experience and appreciate the joys of life. But let us view
the whole panorama of life and not just a postcard picture, nor turn a
deaf ear or blind eye to the suffering of humanity and creation -- which
is bleeding to death from a fatal wound unless a divine physician can
administer a healing touch and save us.
The witches' world is fraught with problems, and we have attempted to
point out just a few of the pitfalls in the interest of their finding life
-- and that more abundantly (John 10:10).
*Notes*
1
C. S. Lewis, _The Screwtape Letters_ (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.,
1975), 33.
2 For striking examples of this, _see_ note 32 in Part
One of this series, and T. M. Luhrmann, _Persuasions of the Witch's Craft:
Ritual Magic in Contemporary England_ (Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1989), 202, 279-96.
3 _See_ Norman Geisler, _Signs and
Wonders_ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1988), 47-81; _See_ also
Danny Korem and Paul Meier, _The Fakers_ (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H.
Revell Co., 1980); and Danny Korem, _Powers: Testing the Psychic and
Supernatural_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988).
4 _See
The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology_ (DNTT), ed.
Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980), vol. 2.,
s.v. "Magic, Sorcery, Magi"; _The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia,_ rev. ed., ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1980), vol. 1, s.v. "Divination"; _Ibid.,_ (1986), vol. 3,
s.v. "Magic, Magician"; _Ibid.,_ s.v. "Medium"; and _The New Bible
Dictionary,_ ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co.,
1978), s.v. "Magic and Sorcery."
5 These attempts and the arguments
which counter them are available upon request.
6 _See_ the _DNTT,_
vol. 1, s.v. "Demon, Air, Cast Out." For the definitive treatment, _see_
the _Theological Dictionary of the New Testament_ (TDNT), ed. Gerhard
Kittel, trans. and ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1978), vol. 2, s.v. "_daimon, daimonion...._"
7
TDNT, vol. 2, 17.
8 DNTT, s.v. "_daimonion,_" vol. 1, 452.
9
_See_ Margot Adler, _Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids,
Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today,_ rev. and expanded
ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1986), 23-38, 169, 172, 299, 455; Raymond
Buckland, _Buckland's Complete Book of Witchcraft_ (St. Paul: Llewellyn
Publications, 1988), 99; Scott Cunningham, _The Truth about Witchcraft
Today_ (St. Paul: Llewellyn Publications, 1988), 66-67; Sybil Leek, _Diary
of a Witch_ (New York: Signet Books, 1969), 14; Starhawk, _Dreaming the
Dark,_ new ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1988), 37-38; Starhawk, _The Spiral
Dance_ (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1979), 188-89.
10 _See_,
e.g., Adler, 172.
11 _See,_ e.g., Luhrmann, 290-93.
12
Starhawk, _Dreaming,_ 22, 41.
13 Adler, 27-36, 169-73, 441-42,
455.
14 _See,_ e.g., Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 190, 197; Adler, 20,
169-73.
15 Consult Irving Copi, _Introduction to Logic,_ seventh
ed. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1982), 306-8.
16 _See,_
e.g., Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 188-90.
17 Stewart Farrar, _What Witches
Do: The Modern Coven Revealed_ (London: Sphere Books, 1971), 43.
18
_See,_ e.g., Adler, 36, 43, 86, 164-65, 169-73; Starhawk, _Spiral,_
188-92; Luhrmann: 274-96, 301-3, 335-36.
19 For some good
treatments on logic and adequate criteria to test truth claims, _see_
Edward J. Carnell, _Introduction to Christian Apologetics_ (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1976), 45-62; Norman Geisler, _Christian
Apologetics_ (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1978), 141-47; and Norman
Geisler and William Watkins, _Worlds Apart: A Handbook on World Views_
(Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 105, 262-69.
20 _See,_
e.g., Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 11-12, 14.
21 Despite the claim that
witches _never_ use their real or imagined abilities to harm another,
there is ample evidence to the contrary. References are available on
request.
22 B. Alexander and D. Frew, _Christian/Pagan Forum,_
audio cassette (A 010), (Berkeley: SCP, 1986), October, 19.
23
Space does not permit a thorough discussion of these points. However, they
are discussed at length by Geisler and Watkins in _Worlds Apart,_ 75-146,
239-53, 255-69; and Geisler, _Christian Apologetics,_ 173-213.
24
_See_ note 22.
25 Starhawk, _Spiral,_ 80.
26 _Ibid.,_
29.
27 Erica Jong, _Witches_ (New York: Harry N. Abrams Publishers,
1981), 52.
28 Starhawk, _Dreaming,_ 43.
29 Buckland,
17.
30 Sybil Leek, _The Complete Art of Witchcraft_ (New York:
Signet Books, 1973), 146-47.
31 _See_ note 28 for the horrific
results of this type of belief. For some critiques of reincarnation,
consult Mark C. Albrecht, _Reincarnation: A Christian Critique of a New
Age Doctrine_ (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1989), 51-111,
127-30; and Norman Geisler and J. Yutaka Amano, _The Reincarnation
Sensation_ (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 1986), 57-86, 99-102,
107-9, 112.
32 _See,_ e.g., Norman Geisler and Winfried Corduan,
_Philosophy of Religion,_ 2d. ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1988),
297-98.
33 _Ibid.,_ 299-300.
34 _See_ notes 22 and
35.
35 Albrecht, 106-9.
36 _See_ Albrecht, 106-9, and note
22.
37 For a full discussion of this issue, _see_ Norman Geisler,
_The Roots of Evil_ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1979); and
Geisler and Corduan, _Philosophy of Religion,_
293-385.