Eat, Pray, Love, Elizabeth Gilbert’s first autobiographical book, is engaging, thought-provoking, and a great tribute to the resiliency of the human spirit. The book chronicles her early prayers and search for God, as well as her quest for understanding and wholeness—longings fundamental to the human experience.

Her views on traditional Christianity are clear: “While I do love that great teacher of peace who was called Jesus, and while I do reserve the right to ask myself in certain trying situations what indeed He would do, I can’t swallow that one fixed rule of Christianity insisting that Christ is the only path to God” (p. 14). At the core of her beliefs is a mystical understanding and experience of the Divine as pure love: “I have always responded with breathless excitement to anyone who has ever said that God…abides very close to us indeed—much closer than we can imagine, breathing right through our own hearts. I respond with gratitude to anyone who has ever voyaged to the center of that heart, and who has then returned to the world with a report for the rest of us that God is an experience of supreme love” (14, emphasis in original).

During her travels, Gilbert spends four months living a strict monastic life in her guru’s ashram in India, practicing deep yogic meditation techniques with resulting significant spiritual experiences. Her framework for understanding her experiences is her guru’s Hinduism. Gilbert believes that “human discontentment is a simple case of mistaken identity….We have failed to recognize our deeper divine character….Yoga is the effort to experience one’s divinity personally and then to hold onto that experience forever” (122). Again, “You come to your Guru, then, not only to receive lessons, as from any teacher, but to actually receive the Guru’s state of grace….with the hope that the merits of your master will reveal to you your own hidden greatness” (124).

Gilbert writes with deep reverence about her guru, Swami Chidvilasananda, who is the current guru of the Siddha Yoga branch of Hinduism taught by her master, Swami Muktananda. Gilbert relates meeting the deceased Muktananda frequently in her dreams and meditations. While she deliberately never mentions the name of her guru or her guru’s master, what she does say about them (intentionally or not) makes it easy for one to discover who they are.¹

Gilbert is honest about her naïveté in her books, but I do not think she grasps how uncritically she has swallowed the gospel of her beloved guru and her brand of yoga. Gilbert struggles with guilt over her divorce, insecurity, loneliness, deep depression, and a sense of inadequacy that tilts toward self-loathing, until the yoga experiences give her some relief. She describes experiencing pure love in her meditations (“Whatever this feeling is—this is what I have been praying for. And this is what I have been praying to” [203, emphasis in original]). Yet she does not describe these experiences in terms of her “own hidden greatness,” or her own “divinity.” I think this is because she knows herself too well.

She describes the history of religion as “the history of mankind’s search for holiness” (208). In her own search, I pray she will look much more closely at Jesus. Putting aside the serious issue of abuse in institutional religions (all religions can become abusive, especially as their institutions become more entrenched and powerful), look at Jesus. Read the four gospels. He is like no one else in history.

In His last meal with His disciples, Jesus takes a piece of bread, gives thanks, and breaks it in pieces for His disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.” Then He takes the cup of wine, gives thanks, and offers it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. This is the blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matt. 26:26–28 NIV). Most of the world’s earliest religions—including ancient Hinduism—recognized the human need for cleansing from sin, and provided for it through animal sacrifices. However, Jesus comes as “the lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29 NIV). In Jesus, our sins are not glossed over or reframed, they are forgiven and removed: “For Christ’s love compels us, because we are convinced that one died for all, and therefore all died. And he died for all, that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised again.…We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God. God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God” (2 Cor. 5:14–15, 20–21 NIV). —Carole Ryan

 NOTES

1. For example, she states that her guru is a woman who inherited the work of a well-known guru who died in 1982. Plus, many of Gilbert’s “spiritual insights” are worded very similarly to sayings by her gurus. Visit the Web site, www.leavingsiddhayoga.net for interesting articles about some of the abuse of authority issues with this group. See especially the exposé by Lis Harris, “O Guru, Guru, Guru,” The New Yorker (November 14, 1994).

 SYNOPSIS

Satanism is a topic that many people would prefer to ignore despite the fact that for some it has become a way of life, a philosophy, indeed, a religion. What started out as perhaps an American novelty is now being recognized by some, even in other countries, as a bona fide way to worship. When Anton Szandor LaVey burst onto the scene in the 1960s with his Church of Satan and his dark and foreboding Satanic Bible, many were shocked. Some welcomed him, however, and to them LaVey became a mentor, if not a guru. LaVey’s Satanism was, for them, a long-awaited religion that celebrated mans natural carnal desires and instincts and eschewed hypocrisy, acknowledging that the lives that people live on Saturday night should be preached on Sunday morning.

Is Satanism nothing more than a concession to our passions, or does it have substance beyond that? Its growth and development over the past nearly 40 years cause many to think there is more, including those who still embrace this religion of the dark side even after the novelty has worn off and who want others to understand why.

The term strikes fear in many and ridicule or skepticism in others. Satanism, standing as it has against the conventional morality and religious assumptions of much of Western civilization, strikes many as antithetical to all the pillars of decent society. Is Satanism what most people suspect? Do Satanists worship the Devil? Is it a serious religion or just a pretense to revelry and antisocial behavior? Should we be afraid?

ANATOMY OF A PHENOMENON

With the help of the Internet, anyone can set himself or herself up as an expert and self-proclaimed Satanist. The most conspicuous representation of Satanism in any official (if such a term can even be applied to Satanism) capacity, however, is the Church of Satan.

Investigative journalist Arthur Lyons’s grouping of Satanists is probably the most used by those who discuss Satanism, although the Church of Satan objects to such categorization. In his book Satan Wants You Lyons divides Satanists into three types: Neo-satanic churches, solitary Satanists, and “outlaw” cults.¹ Others label these groups religious Satanists, self-styled Satanists, and satanic cults, respectively. This categorization is somewhat helpful, but there are potential problems with it. First, it fails to emphasize at least one important distinction within the category of religious Satanists, namely, between the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set, as I will explain below. Second, this categorization may put too much emphasis on satanic cults as an important segment of the phenomena. Lyons’s book was written during the heyday of accusations, exposés, and confessions of the ravaging of victims in secret torture chambers,² known as satanic ritual abuse by supposed sinister satanic cults. I will say more on this third category, but first I would like to look at the first two categories: religious Satanists and self-styled Satanists.

Religious Satanists: The Church of Satan

The person who is almost single-handedly responsible for making Satanism a household word was Anton Szandor LaVey. The timing was just right during the cultural upheaval of the 1960s for someone to come along to challenge and lampoon many of Western society’s traditions and icons. In contrast to the ubiquitous Christianity in America, in symbols if not in values and morals, LaVey could find no better representative for what he wanted to start than Satan himself. For all the centuries of shouting down the Devil has received, he has never shouted back at his detractors. He has remained the gentleman at all times, while those he supports rant and rave. He has shown himself to be a model of deportment, but now he feels it is time to shout back. He has decided it is finally time to receive his due.³

As the official story goes — much of it has been debunked⁴  — Howard Stanton Levey, also known as Anton Szandor LaVey, on the last night of April, 1966 — Walpurgisnacht, the most important festival of the believers in witchcraft—…shaved his head in the tradition of ancient executioners and announced the formation of The Church of Satan.⁵

It turns out that even this much of the story is not true, according to LaVey’s daughter Zeena. The idea of a church arose as a business and publicity vehicle⁶ suggested by a professional publicist since he was convinced that LaVey would never make any money by lecturing on Friday nights for [the two-dollar] donations…that he charged…filling his living room with the curious and establishing a local reputation as an eccentric.⁷

However the institution came about, the Church of Satan certainly went on to attract quite a bit of attention. Much of this attention was aroused by the publication of its manual, The Satanic Bible, and the sequel, The Satanic Rituals. In The Satanic Bible, LaVey lays out his views, which can best be described as an atheistic religion of self-interested hedonism with a dash of occult philosophy.

Satanism Is Atheistic. Many people are surprised to learn that LaVey did not believe in the existence of a literal Devil. This is probably the most misunderstood element about LaVey’s brand of Satanism: its adherents do not worship Satan. LaVey chose this title precisely because his philosophy celebrated all the aspects of the human experience that he thought had been wrongfully condemned by traditional religions, particularly Christianity. “Satanism…is a religion of the flesh, the mundane, the carnal, all of which are ruled by Satan, the personification [emphasis added] of the Left Hand Path.”⁸ Satan, for LaVey, “represents opposition to all religions which serve to frustrate and condemn man for his natural instincts.”⁹ In LaVey’s estimation, there could be no better title for a religion that stands opposed to his own concept of Christianity than one that is derived from the name of the archenemy that Christianity itself declares.

The term atheism, however, might not apply outright to LaVeyian Satanism. He observed, “It is a popular misconception that the Satanist does not believe in God. The concept ‘God,’ as interpreted by man, has been so varied throughout the ages, that the Satanist simply accepts the definition which suits him best….To the Satanist ‘God’ —by whatever name he is called, or by no name at all — is seen as the balancing factor in nature…[a] powerful force which permeates and balances the universe.”¹⁰ LaVey insisted that he believed in a God of some sort; therefore, we may allow him the prerogative of rejecting the label atheist. It does seem, however, that in the usual sense of the term, LaVeyian Satanism is atheistic.

Satanism Is a Religion. When one discovers that the Church of Satan does not worship or believe in Satan, questions present themselves: Why do they call it Satanism? Why not just call it humanism? LaVey anticipated these very questions in The Satanic Bible. He explained, Humanism is not a religion. It is simply a way of life with no ceremony or dogma. Satanism has both ceremony and dogma. Dogma…is necessary.¹¹

Why is dogma necessary according to LaVey? “It is one thing to accept something intellectually, but to accept the same thing emotionally is an entirely different matter….Dogma provides man with his much needed fantasy.”¹² It seems, however, that answering one question just raises another: Why does man need fantasy and emotions in LaVey’s Satanism? The answer to this lies in his understanding of magic.

Satanism Is Occult Philosophy. LaVey’s philosophy, without the ingredient of magic, would be just another version of humanism. What gives it more of a religious flavor to many is its focus on magic. Magic, for LaVey, was the “change in situations or events in accordance with one’s will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be unchangeable.”¹³ These “normally accepted methods,” presumably, would be the methods of modern science; thus, for LaVey, magic was more (or other) than science. “Magic is never totally scientifically explainable.”¹⁴ Consistent with other occult groups, LaVey’s Satanism teaches that there is an action and reaction principle that is responsible for everything that happens in ones life.¹⁵ The cause and effect (action and reaction) aspect of the physical world is the foundation of modern science; applying the same paradigm to the nonphysical realm is the essential element of occult philosophy. Different occult groups interpret this action and reaction principle differently. It was, for LaVey, a sort of bioenergy that is conducted and controlled by ritual and ceremony. The rituals main function “is to isolate the otherwise dissipated adrenal and other emotionally induced energy, and convert it into a dynamically transmittable force.”¹⁶ Magic is the practice of harnessing this force.

The presence of this occult philosophy, together with it is proximity to other occult traditions, is even more explicit in LaVey’s The Satanic Rituals. LaVey taught, “Satanic Ritual is a blend of Gnostic, Cabbalistic, Hermetic, and Masonic elements, incorporating nomenclature and vibratory words of power from virtually every mythos.”¹⁷ These vibratory words of power supposedly could be used to manipulate this energy in such a way as to affect ones world. Whether one wished to curse an enemy to cause him harm or to seduce an object of ones affections, LaVey offered a host of rituals to harness this energy to do ones bidding. The fact that these rituals are almost entirely directed toward one’s own self-interest is characteristic of what Satanists call the “left-hand path” and is what sharply distinguishes the religion of Satanism from other occult religions such as witchcraft.

Satanism Is Self-Interested Hedonism. In the end, LaVey’s religion is directed toward one’s self-interest in the pursuit of pleasure, or hedonism. This is where he saw his views standing in their most stark contrast to Christianity: “The seven deadly sins of the Christian Church are: greed, pride, envy, anger, gluttony, lust, and sloth. Satanism advocates indulging in each of these ‘sins’ as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.”¹⁸ His hedonistic philosophy also was evident in the summary of his religion known as “The Nine Satanic Statements.” These statements express what Satan represented for LaVey, including “indulgence, instead of abstinence,” “vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek,” and “all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification.”¹⁹

These dogmas together with instructions on how to manipulate occult forces became the basis on which LaVey grew a “church,” which established grottos (i.e., local chapters) across America. According to Lyons, the Church of Satan reached its peak membership number in the 1970s at about 300 (if you believe certain disgruntled former members) or around 10,000 (if you believe the official church). Lyons estimates the true number to have been around 5,000.²⁰ It almost certainly has dropped since then. In 1975 LaVey restructured the church, which included dismantling the grotto system, in recognition of Satanism’s Fifth Phase — Application.²¹

Howard Stanton Levey died on October 29, 1997. The Church of Satan still exists, but under new leadership and with an Internet presence. It retains the philosophy of self-indulgence, however, which predated its founder and still plagues the human race. The Church of Satan’s emphasis on hedonistic self-interest makes it hard to imagine how any member could become disgruntled while wanting to remain a Satanist; but, this is exactly what happened to one of the church’s main leaders, Michael Aquino. His story takes us to a brief look at another satanic church: The Temple of Set.

Religious Satanists: The Temple of Set

Philosophical differences began to emerge between LaVey and Aquino. According to Lyons, “LaVey was disaffected with Aquino’s attitude, which he thought to be ego-motivated and over-intellectual. Aquino, in turn, had grown impatient with the High Priest’s refusal to relinquish administrative power and had become increasingly dissatisfied with the church’s professed atheism, which he thought to be sterile.”²² Both groups have their own version of the story. The Church of Satan maintains that those who left to start the Temple of Set are “significant only in that they have continued to try to ride upon the coattails of the Church of Satan, and indeed even publicly claim to be the successor to and custodian of the Church of Satan” — a claim that the Church of Satan emphatically denies.²³ In its published material, the Temple of Set is quite open about its history and its former identity with the Church of Satan. It also has something to say about why a new organization was needed.

The Church [of Satan]…continued to experience increasing difficulty with the basic nihilism and negative connotations of its religious imagery…. [It] suffered periodically from petty crises and scandals among the general membership, and finally Anton LaVey lost confidence in its organizational viability. In 1975 he made a decision to redesign it as a nonfunctional vehicle for his personal expression, exploitation, and financial income. Until his 1997 death he continued to cynically advertise it as a religion, and to sell “memberships” and “priesthoods” under this guise. LaVey’s 1975 corruption of the Church of Satan was emphatically rejected by the majority of the Priesthood, who immediately resigned from the Church in protest and denied its legitimacy as an authentic Satanic religion henceforth.²⁴

According to Lyons, Aquino sought the counsel of Satan himself. It turns out that the biggest difference between LaVey and Aquino is that, while LaVey understood Satan only as a metaphor or personification, Aquino maintains that Satan really exists as a sentient being. Lyons comments:

Due to the strength of LaVey’s charisma and the fact that he held a trademark on the Church of Satan name, Aquino knew that any attempt to start up another Church of Satan would be futile, so he decided to summon up the Prince of Darkness and ask him what to do. On the eve of the north solstice, June 21, 1975, Aquino performed a magical Working and Satan purportedly appeared to him in the image of Set—the oryx-headed god of death and destruction that Aquino claims is the earliest manifestation of the Christian Devil.²⁵

This encounter resulted in a writing titled The Book of Coming Forth by Night wherein Set instructed Aquino to depart from LaVey and inaugurate the age of Set. This new religion has sought a rather low profile, opting to reserve its official materials for only its members. The organization also has recently begun to distance itself from the term Satanism.

The philosophy of the Temple of Set, nonetheless, is of the “left-hand path,” summarized by its adoption of the term Xepher (pronounced “Kheffer”). It is the Egyptian hieroglyphic term for ‘to become’ or ‘to come into being.’”²⁶ In contradistinction to those religions that seek to help individuals merge with ultimate reality (e.g., Eastern religions) or to be reconciled with ultimate reality without actually becoming that reality (e.g., Western religions), the Temple of Set seeks to help individuals explore and glory in their individual self as set against the rest of reality.

The Black Magician desires this psyche to live, to experience, and to continue. He does not wish to die or to lose his consciousness and identity in a larger, Universal consciousness….He wants to be. This decision in favor of individual existence is the first premise of the Temple of Set. The second premise of the Temple is that the psychecentric consciousness can evolve towards its own divinity through deliberate exercise of the intelligence and Will, a process of becoming or coming into being [emphasis in original].²⁷

More could be said about the Temple of Set, including the wide array of writings, the levels of initiation, and the various aspects of group gatherings, but this is enough to show both the similarities and the differences between the Church of Satan and the Temple of Set. The former is largely public in that its materials are readily available in bookstores or through the Internet; the latter is much more secretive. The former maintains a fairly simple philosophy of self-aggrandizement through the pursuit of carnal pleasures; the latter is a more complex system of philosophies through which one seeks to realize ones own divinity. The former recognizes no existence greater than the individual; the latter readily seeks the counsel of the Prince of Darkness. Both share a common commitment to the self as the focus of their philosophies and both seek to utilize occult forces to achieve their goals, however different each sees its own goals as being from the others.

Self-Styled Satanism: Fascinated Youth

In seeking to analyze Satanism fairly, we should not lose sight of the fact that it has its destructive manifestations in the here and now. If all Satanism amounted to was adults living the hedonistic life or seeking deep philosophical self-deification, perhaps there would be little with which to concern ourselves as Christians beyond the obligation to reach out to any and all who need the gospel. This is not the case, however.

What has brought Satanism to the attention of some, especially parents, is the phenomenon of teenagers interest in Satanism. Satanic images pepper CD covers while teenagers shout the lyrics of death, destruction, and violence to the beat of their favorite music. These teens interest in Satanism can generally be described as self-styled: they desire only to dabble in Satanism using LaVey’s Satanic Bible as a guide, but without any serious commitment or even understanding of its philosophy and without joining any official satanic organization. The promises of a self-centered hedonistic philosophy together with Satanism’s promises of power through occult forces are a perfect recipe for seducing young people who are already struggling with newly found passions.

One should avoid the extremes of, on the one hand, simply dismissing indications of satanic involvement in an individual youth as being merely the whims of adolescence that could never do any harm and, on the other hand, falling victim to hysterical exaggerations of vast satanic conspiracies that have infiltrated virtually every level of society. Christian researchers Bob and Gretchen Passantino noted several factors that often accompany teenage involvement in Satanism, including extreme alienation; a morbid fascination with horror, death, and pain; drug and alcohol use; nonconformity in school, home, or job; and an unnatural attraction to the mysterious, the occult, or the magical.²⁸

The Passantinos offered several suggestions for anyone who suspects that a loved one is gravitating toward involvement in Satanism. Above all, while trying to minister to one who has been influenced by some form of Satanism, always bear in mind the encouragement of 1 John 4:4: “He who is in you is greater than he who is in the world.”²⁹ Beyond this, one must try to intervene for the involved person by being willing to talk and listen, by praying for and with him or her, and by offering better solutions to his or her problems than those offered by Satanism. I would add to these suggestions that to the degree that the person has been dissuaded of the facts of the Christian worldview, anyone who tries to reach that person must be prepared to answer the penetrating questions that he or she may have picked up from reading satanic material.

The Satanic Cults: Legacy of Satanic Ritual Abuse

Another phenomenon that drew widespread attention to Satanism was the popularity of Christian comedian Mike Warnke. Warnke arrived on the scene in the 1970s with a unique blend of humor and inspiration against the backdrop of a testimony of a conversion to Christianity out of a secret life as a satanic high priest. Warnke fueled the fire of a growing hysteria that there existed a virtually global network of sinister occultists who were affecting numerous aspects of Western society. His story set the stage for a spate of testimonies by people who claimed to have escaped the grips of Satanists who held them captive for any number of unseemly purposes.

Numerous articles and books have been written on the subject of satanic ritual abuse (SRA), by those who claim to have been victims of it and by those who argue that such claims are fraudulent. A critical examination of Warnke’s claims of his involvement in Satanism was accompanied by a number of other exposés of SRA claims.³⁰ In my opinion, these stories are not true.³¹ This is not to say that such crimes never have been committed; rather, it is to say that there never has been such a thing as a widespread epidemic of these abuses. I am convinced of this by the arguments and evidence marshaled by a number of highly competent and trustworthy Christian investigators and countercult apologists.³²

Pleasure and the Purpose of Life: Reaching Out to the Satanist

There is nothing wrong in principle with the philosophy of Satanism that says we ought to pursue pleasure (or, for that matter, self-interest). I would go so far as to say that we can agree with the Satanist that it is natural (which is to say, it is part of our nature) to pursue pleasure. The problem is that the Satanist draws the line of what is permissible in the wrong place or draws no line at all. Christians are not obligated to defend the notion that humans exist only to deny ourselves all pleasure; indeed, it is just the opposite: we exist for the experience of pleasure. Perhaps pleasure is a misleading term. Philosophers like Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas used the term happiness.³³ Christian thinker C. S. Lewis used the term joy.³⁴

The problem is not that we as humans seek our own pleasure, happiness, or joy. The problem is that we as sinners look for it in the wrong places. Consider this analogy: Children always seek to eat only what tastes good to them. We, as adults, regret this in children and seek to wean them of this tendency. It is not that we adults think that eating should not include things that taste good. It is that we know that not everything that tastes good is good or is even food in the first place. Children’s understanding of nutrition and their tastes are not developed, however; therefore, they invariably resist eating what is good for them and desire what is not good for them or is even harmful. If children ate according to the philosophy of Satanism, then they would never deny themselves whatever tastes good regardless whether it has any nutritional value, like cotton candy, or, worse, they would eat something that tastes good but is poison. They also would refuse to eat what is good for them, all the while mocking and ridiculing those who did so eat.

If we think of eating as an analogy of living one’s life, and good and bad tastes as an analogy of pleasures and pains, then perhaps we can see that what we as humans need to learn is to recognize and appreciate what actually is good for us. Perhaps what we, like children, need is for our understanding and tastes to develop so that we learn to love what is good for us. What the Christian understands but the Satanist does not is that there is something wrong with us. We fallen humans too often find pleasure in what is not in our best interest or is evil. The problem, however, is not the experience of pleasure itself. The problem is in us: we choose the wrong things to satisfy our desire for pleasure. What we need is somehow to come to love the taste of what is intrinsically good and what is in our ultimate best interest.³⁵ This is where God comes in. We need to “taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who trusts in Him!” (Ps. 34:8).

What we need to help the Satanist see is that the pleasures of life that he (or she) so desperately seeks are found ultimately only in his Creator.³⁶ We are created to know God and “enjoy Him forever,” as the Westminster Larger and Shorter Catechisms say. Convincing a Satanist of this is, of course, not necessarily an easy task. If no one can see his need for God apart from the work of the Holy Spirit, then this is especially the case with the Satanist. In addition, getting the Satanist to see the truth of Psalm 16:11 — “You will show me the path of life; In Your presence is fullness of joy; At Your right hand are pleasures forevermore — also requires getting him to see a host of other truths, such as the fact that there is a God and an afterlife. This means that we must be prepared to defend the truths of the Christian faith and show that not only experience but also reason demonstrate the reality of the God of the Bible, the truthfulness of His word, and the meaning of the historical life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus.

With the help of the Holy Spirit, the Satanist may come to see that his own pursuit of pleasure is in reality a rebellion against the God who made him, for which he needs to be forgiven. Then the stage will be set for him to be delivered “from the power of darkness and conveyed into the kingdom of the Son of His love” (Col. 1:13). This is what the Satanist needs. This is indeed what we all need.

 NOTES:

1. Arthur Lyons, Satan Wants You: The Cult of Devil Worship in America (New York: The Mysterious Press, 1988), 9.
2. Lyons himself did not necessarily contribute to the satanic ritual abuse hysteria as he seemed not to take sides on the question of the reality of any satanic conspiracy.
3. Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible (New York: Avon Books, 1969), 29.
4. See Lawrence Wright, Sympathy for the Devil, Rolling Stone no. 612 (September 5, 1991). Since Wrights article, more challenges to elements of LaVey’s story have come to light, most significantly by LaVey’s daughter Zeena Schreck. See Zeena Schreck and Nikolas Schreck, Anton LaVey: Legend and Reality, Night Breeds: Realm of Dark Magicks, http://fcos.us/aslv.html. The charges of fraud leveled by the Schrecks not only extend to the person of LaVey but also to The Satanic Bible itself. They say, Pressed for material to meet Avon’s [i.e., Avon Books] deadline, ASL [i.e., LaVey] resorted to plagiarism, assembling extracts from an obscure 1896 tract Might is Right by Ragnar Redbeard. For more on the plagiarism in The Satanic Bible, see excerpts from John Smulo, Christs Advocate: An Incarnational Apologetic to Satanism, Criticisms of Satanism, http://www.dpjs.co.uk/criticism/smulo.html.
5. LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 1. Other works by LaVey include The Satanic Rituals (New York: Avon Books, 1972); The Satanic Witch (Los Angeles: Feral House, 1970); The Devils Notebook (Los Angeles: Feral House, 1992); and the posthumously published Satan Speaks! (Los Angeles: Feral House, 1998).
6. Schreck.
7. Ibid.
8. LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 52. Occultist Nevil Drury defines these expressions: Right-hand Path. In mysticism and occultism, the esoteric path associated with spiritual illumination, virtue, and positive aspiration. It is the path of light.Left-hand Path. From the Latin sinister, left, the path of black magic and sorcery. Practitioners in this tradition seek to use magic to acquire personal power, rather than of the purpose of spiritual transcendence. Dictionary of Mysticism and the Occult (San Francisco: Harper and Row Publishers, 1985), s.v., Right-hand Path, 225 and s.v., Left-hand Path, 149.
9. LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 55.
10. Ibid., 40.
11. Ibid., 50.
12. Ibid., 53.
13. Ibid., 110.
14. Ibid.
15. Ibid., 41.
16. Ibid., 111.
17. LaVey, The Satanic Rituals, 21. All of these named groups constitute a rich array of occult doctrines and philosophies.
18. Ibid., 46.
19. LaVey, The Satanic Bible, 25.
20. Lyons, Satan Wants You, 115.
21. Blanche Barton, The Church of Satan (New York: Hells Kitchen Productions, 1990), 119.
22. Lyons, Satan Wants You, 126.
23. Peter H. Gilmore, Pretenders to the Throne: Regarding the Temple of Set, Church of Satan, http://www.churchofsatan.com/ Pages/Pretenders.htm.
24. Temple of Set: General Information and Admission Policies, Temple of Set, http://www.xeper.org/pub/gil/ xp_TOC_gil_English.htm.
25. Lyons, Satan Wants You, 126.
26. “Temple of Set: General Information and Admission Policies.”
27. Ibid.
28. Bob Passantino and Gretchen Passantino, When the Devil Dares: Teenagers and Satanism, Answers in Action, http://www.answers.org/satan/teens_satanism.html.
29. All Bible quotations are from the New King James Version.
30. For a full expos of the claims made by Mike Warnke, see Mike Hertenstein and Jon Trott, Selling Satan: The Evangelical Media and the Mike Warnke Scandal (Chicago: Cornerstone Press, 1993).
31. For excellent research on Satanism and satanic ritual abuse, see articles listed under Satanism and SRA, Answers in Action, http://www.answers.org/satan/. See also Bob and Gretchen Passantino, The Hard Facts about Satanic Ritual Abuse, Christian Research Journal 14, 3 (1992).
32. Examples of the more prominent cases that have been exposed as fraudulent include Lauren Stratford’s Satan’s Underground (see Bob Passantino, Gretchen Passantino, and Jon Trott, Satan’s Sideshow: The True Lauren Stratford Story, Cornerstone, http://www.cornerstone.com/features/iss090/sideshow.htm) and Rebecca Browns He Came to Set the Captives Free (see G. Richard Fisher and M. Kurt Goedelman, The Curse of Curse Theology: The Return of Rebecca Brown, M. D., Personal Freedom Outreach, http://www.pfo.org/curse-th.htm).
33. See Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics 1.7.1097a301097b8; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia 1.2, Q3.
34. C. S. Lewis, Surprised by Joy (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1955), especially chap. 15.
35. It seems to me that only the Christian worldview is able to settle the age old disputes between several great philosophical models of ethics and the human good, namely, deontology (i.e., understanding what is right in terms of duty or intrinsic rightness), utilitarianism (i.e., understanding what is right in terms of what is most practical or useful), and egoistic hedonism (i.e., understanding what is right in terms of ones own pleasure and self-interest). In the Christian worldview, God is the union of all these concepts: intrinsic value (deontology), ultimate utility or usefulness (utilitarianism), and pleasure and self-interest (egoistic hedonism). It is our duty, therefore, to do the Creators will even if it is unpleasant and against our own self-interest in the short term. For the redeemed in the afterlife, our duty results in maximum utility and in our ultimate pleasure and self-interest. In the Christian worldview, doing the good (i.e., what is right) ultimately is good for us.
36. See John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1986).

First, Wicca, also known as “The Craft” or “The Old Religion,” holds that all reality is divine. Thus, Wiccans revere the natural world as a living, breathing organism, and they revere people as “gods” and “goddesses.” As Wicca is a distinctively feminist form of neo–paganism, however, Wiccans often consider the supreme manifestation of deity to be a nature goddess (such as the Triple Goddess of the Moon). In sharp contrast to the Christian worldview, Wiccans worship creation rather than the Creator (cf. Romans 1:25). While the Bible does teach that people should care for the environment (Genesis 2:15; Deuteronomy 20:19–20; Psalm 115:16) and appreciate its magnificence (Psalm 19; Matthew 6:28–30), our worship belongs only to the Creator whose glory is reflected in creation (Job 38–41; Psalm 148; Romans 1).

Furthermore, the supreme ethical rule of Wicca is the Wiccan Rede: “If it harms none, do as ye Will.” Despite this proscription against harming others, Wiccans hold that moral and religious truths are ultimately relative. Thus, while the Wiccan Rede sets the Craft apart from the malevolent activities of Satanists, the Wiccan worldview stands in direct opposition to the biblical notions of absolute moral truth and exclusive salvation through Jesus Christ who alone is “the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6).

Finally, Wiccans practice magick (spelled with a k to differentiate it from conjuring for entertainment) in an attempt to manipulate the natural world and alter mental and material conditions. As such, Wicca is an esoteric occult practice designed to manipulate reality in concert with the Wiccan’s will. Tools of the Craft include swords and spell books, as well as chalices, censers, cords, and crystals. Regardless of whether the motivation is benevolent or malevolent, Scripture unequivocally condemns all occult practices as detestable to the Lord (Deuteronomy 18:10–12; Acts 13:6–11; 16:16–18; Galatians 5:19–21).

For further study, see Richard G. Howe, “Modern Witchcraft: It may not be what you think,” Christian Research Journal 28, 1 (2005): 12–21, available through the Christian Research Institute (CRI) at www.equip.org.

Get the Book

First, through sorcery (magick), occultists seek to harness paranormal powers for private purposes. Using ritualistic formulas, spells, and incantations, occultists seek to harness what they perceive to be the natural and spiritual powers of the universe in order to satisfy their own desires. God warned the ancient Israelites that these very practices would inevitably lead to their downfall (Deuteronomy 18:9–14; cf. 2 Kings 17:16–18). Likewise, he rebuked the ancient Babylonians for supposing that they could bypass his power through their “many sorceries” and “potent spells” (Isaiah 47:8–15).

Furthermore, occultists employ spiritualistic practices (mediumship) in order to contact non–physical entities including the souls of the dead. These spirits are believed to be capable of providing cosmic insights into this world and the next. As such, spiritists employ Ouija boards, crystal balls, and the belongings of the dead to conjure up the departed. God’s warning against those who practice spiritism could not be more ominous or direct: “I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people” (Leviticus 20:6; cf. 19:31; 1 Chronicles 10:13–14; Isaiah 8:19). The objective of occultism is self–deification through sorcery, spiritism, and soothsaying.

Finally, occultists seek to access secret or hidden information about the future through soothsaying (divination). Among the most common tools of the soothsayer are Tarot cards, astrological charts, horoscopes, and tea leaves. The Lord’s command is emphatic and explicit: “Do not practice divination” (Leviticus 19:26). Indeed, a tremendous insult to the power and providence of the Almighty is to seek guidance through the occult. Thus, when the Israelites were about to enter the land of Promise, the Lord warned them not to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there: “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” (Deuteronomy 18:10–12; cf. Acts 13:6–11; 16:16–18; Galatians 5:19–21).

For further study, see Elliot Miller, A Crash Course on the New Age Movement (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989, out of print but available used online through many outlets).

Get the Book

First, there are Adventists who are thoroughly orthodox. As such, they embrace the essentials of the historic Christian faith. While we may vigorously debate secondary issues, we are unified around the essentials for which the martyrs shed their blood.

Furthermore, there are Adventists who are thoroughly liberal. They not only compromise and confuse but consistently contradict essentials of the faith such as the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection, and the infallibility of Scripture.

Finally, there are traditionalists who major on aberrant Adventist doctrines including soul sleep, Sabbatarianism, and the seer status of Ellen G. White. In sharp distinction to soul sleep the Bible provides ample evidence that the soul continues to exist apart from the body (Philippians 1:23–24). Likewise, God himself provided early Christians with a new pattern of worship through Christ’s resurrection on the first day of the week as well as the Spirit’s descent on Pentecost Sunday. Additionally, while Ellen White (1827–1915) claimed divine authority for her prophecies, she was obviously wrong when she prophesied that she would be alive at the second coming of Christ.

For further study, see Hank Hanegraaff,“Why do Christians worship on Sunday rather than on the Sabbath day?” and “Is there evidence for life after death?” The Bible Answer Book Volume 1 (Nashville: J Countryman, 2004), 70–72, 165–169.

Get the Book

First, Scientology teaches that humans are immortal thetans trapped in a physical universe of their own mental construction. Thus, humans are not sinners in need of a savior, but immortal beings who can overcome enslaving engrams—the accumulation of trillions of years of painful subconscious memories—through the pseudo– psychology of auditing—the counseling process through which devotees can locate and resolve past traumatic experiences and experience spiritual enlightenment. As such, Scientology is a rejection of the biblical doctrines of creation, original sin, and exclusive salvation through Jesus Christ (cf. Genesis 1–3; John 14:6; Romans 3:23; 6:23).

Furthermore, Scientology holds that, apart from auditing, a continuous cycle of reincarnation (or “rebirth”) awaits each one of us. In order to escape this vicious cycle we must become self–actualized through the pseudo–psychology of Scientology. No religion that teaches self–actualization by escape from the body can be reconciled with the Christian belief of perfection, purification, and preservation through resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

Scientology’s philosophy leaves a trail of TEARS:
Thetans—immortal state of humans
Engrams—accumulation of painful subconscious memories
Auditing—counseling process for identifying and overcoming engrams and achieving enlightenment
Reincarnation—cycle of rebirth to be repeated until self-actualization
Supreme Being—a god remarkably like the Brahman of Hinduism

Finally, despite allowing its adherents to believe in a god of their own choosing, Scientology champions a Supreme Being that bears a remarkable resemblance to the Brahman of Hinduism. While L. Ron Hubbard’s Supreme Being is science fiction and ultimately cannot heal our pain, the Supreme Being of the Bible can both stem Scientology’s trail of tears—Thetans, Engrams, Auditing, Reincarnation, Supreme Being—and meet our deepest needs.

For further study, see John Weldon, “Scientology: From Science Fiction to Space–Age Religion,” Christian Research Journal, 16, 1 (1993) available through the Christian Research Institute (CRI) at www.equip.org.

Get the Book

First, Scripture clearly condemns astrology as a practice that is “detestable to the Lord” (Deuteronomy 18:10–12). Isaiah goes so far as to say that the counsel of the “astrologers” and “stargazers who make predictions month by month” not only wore out the Babylonians but could not save them from their future ruin (Isaiah 47:13–14). Despite the clear condemnation of Scripture, there are those who maintain that there is a biblical precedent for using stars to chart the future. As a case in point, they cite the star guiding the Magi to the Messiah. However,
a quick look at context reveals that this star was not used to foretell the future but to forth tell the future. In other words, the star of Bethlehem did not prophesy the birth of Christ; it pronounced the birth of Christ (Matthew 2:9–10).

Furthermore, science has debunked astrology as a pseudoscience based on the odd predilection that galaxies rather than genes determine inherited human characteristics. Not only so, astrology cannot account for the problem posed by mass tragedies and twins. People with a wide variety of horoscopes all perished on 9/11/2001. And twins born under the same sign of the zodiac frequently end up with widely diverse futures. Even King Nebuchadnezzar’s astrologers recognized the impotence of their craft. When Nebuchadnezzar asked them to remind him of his dream and then interpret it, they responded in terror, saying, “No man on earth can do what the king asks!” (Daniel 2:10)

Finally, astrology subverts the natural use of the stars, which God ordains, for a superstitious use, which he disdains. Genesis 1:14 points to the natural use of the stars to separate the day from the night, to serve as signs that mark seasons, days, and years, and to illuminate the earth. They also can rightly be used for varied purposes ranging from navigation to natural revelation. Thus, sailors may use astronavigation to chart their course; however, saints may not use astrology to chart their careers.

For further study, see Charles R. Strohmer, America’s Fascination with Astrology: Is it Healthy? (Greenville, South Carolina: Emerald House, 1998).

Get the Book

First, New Agers hold to pantheistic monism. Thus, in their view, God is all, all is God, and all is one. Additionally, they believe that the universe operates under the law of karma and its corollary, the doctrine of reincarnation.

Furthermore, the goal of New Agers is to spiritually evolve and tap into their human potential through the help of “ascended masters” or spirit guides. To attain such enlightenment New Agers engage in occult practices such as astrology, magic, psychic healing, out-of-body experiences, and meditation. In New Age meditation, for example, the goal is to stamp out the self—and to become one with the impersonal cosmic consciousness of the universe. In sharp contrast, biblical meditation seeks to center one’s self on the personal Creator of the universe—and does so through a singular focus on Scripture (Joshua 1:8).

Finally, New Agers share the vision of a coming “age of Aquarius” that is marked by global peace, prosperity, and planetary transformation. Their ultimate goal is encapsulated in such catchphrases as “global village” and “planetary consciousness.” Far from being a monolith, however, the New Age movement is a multifaceted amorphous network of organizations such as Planetary Initiative for the World, Divine Light Mission, and Self-Realization Fellowship, loosely linked yet autonomous.

For further study, see Douglas R. Groothuis, Unmasking the New Age (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1986); for a comprehensive work, see Elliot Miller, A Crash Course on The New Age Movement (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989).

Get the Book

To begin with, the resurrectionist view of one death per person is mutually exclusive from the reincarnationist view of an ongoing cycle of death and rebirth. The writer of Hebrews emphatically states that human beings are “destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Hebrews 9:27, emphasis added). In sharp contrast to a worldview in which humanity perfects itself through an endless cycle of birth and rebirth, the Christian worldview maintains that we are vicariously perfected by the righteousness of Christ (Philippians 3:9).

Furthermore, the biblical teaching of one body per person demonstrates that the gulf between reincarnation and resurrection can never be bridged. Rather than the transmigration of our souls into different bodies, the apostle Paul explains that Christ “will transform our lowly bodies” (Philippians 3:21, emphasis added). He explicitly says that the body that dies is the very body that rises (1 Corinthians 15:42–44).

Finally, the Christian belief that there is only one way to God categorically demonstrates that resurrection and reincarnation can never be reconciled. As Christ himself put it, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6, emphasis added). If Christ is truly God, his claim to be the only way has to be taken seriously. If, on the other hand, he is merely one more person in a pantheon of pretenders, his proclamations can be pushed aside easily. That is precisely why the resurrection is axiomatic to Christianity. Through his resurrection Christ demonstrated that he does not stand in a line of peers with Buddha, Baha’u’llah, Krishna, or any other founder of a world religion. They died and are still dead, but Christ is risen.
Ultimately, resurrection and reincarnation can never be reconciled because the former is a historical fact while the latter is but a Hindu fantasy.

Adapted from Resurrection

For further study, see Hank Hanegraaff, Resurrection (Nashville:Word Publishing, 2000), Chapter 14.

Get the Book

First, in Jeremiah, God allegedly tells his prophet that he knew him as the result of a prior incarnation—“Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (Jeremiah 1:5). In reality, far from suggesting that his prophet had existed in a prior incarnation, Jeremiah underscores the reality that the One who exists from all eternity pre-ordained Jeremiah as “a prophet to the nations.”

Furthermore, in John’s gospel, the disciples allegedly wonder whether a man born blind is paying off karmic debt for himself or for his parents (cf. John 9:1-2). The gospel of John dispels this notion by overtly stating that the man’s blindness had nothing to do with either his sin or that of his parents (John 9:3). If indeed the man was suffering for past indiscretions, Jesus would have violated the law of karma by healing him.

Finally, Jesus himself is cited as suggesting that Elijah was reincarnated as John the Baptist (cf. Matthew 11:14). This tired tale is explicitly dismissed by Scripture itself. When the priests and the Levites asked John if he was Elijah, he replied, “I am not” (John 1:21). In context, Elijah and John are not said to be two incarnations of the same person, but rather two separate people who function in a strikingly similar prophetic role. Or as Luke puts it, John came “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (1:17).

One thing is certain! Reincarnation is completely foreign to the teachings of Scripture.

For further study, see “Can reincarnation and resurrection be reconciled?” p. 303.

Get the Book