(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
Is Truth Just a Matter of Opinion?
An Evaluation of the Ethics of
Witchcraft and Pantheism
by Jon Rittenhouse
Jon has earned a M. A. from Moody Graduate School where he focused study on Satanism, witchcraft, and the occult and a M. A. in Theological Studies with an emphasis in Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics from the International School of Theology. Jon has expertise in this area through extensive research and ministry on university campuses over a thirteen year period. A twenty-year veteran on the staff of Campus Crusade for Christ, Jon has spoken to thousands on more than 75 university campuses in the U.S. and Europe, and has guest lectured for criminology courses and instructed law enforcement officers on the occult. Jon, with his wife Linda and four children, currently reside in Southern California where he is finishing a Master of Divinity degree at the International School of Theology.
Is truth just a matter of
personal opinion? Isn't one person's view of ethics just as valid as another
person's? Are not all views, in essence, the same? And does the whole issue of
truth and ethics really matter? Does it make any difference?
An honest inquirer, interested in witchcraft or pantheistic worldviews, will undoubtedly want to evaluate issues of truth and ethics such as those listed above. The purpose of this article is to help the honest seeker of truth to evaluate the relevant data.
Pantheism is the view that all is god and god is all. It is the view that the universe is all that there is and that the universe is god. Margot Adler in her classic book on witchcraft and paganism describes pantheism as "a view that divinity is inseparable from nature and that deity is immanent in nature."[1]
The major tenets of pantheism include moral relativism, reincarnation, personal autonomy and human divinity. Some popular expressions of pantheism include witchcraft, the New Age, Hinduism, the Star Wars film trilogy, and most occult-based religious systems.
Granted there are differences in the rituals, wording, and expressions of these various systems, yet we will see that there is a recognizable commonality in their ethical foundation and conclusions.
In light of this commonality, it is helpful to look at statements from participants in two representative groups to form an analysis of pantheism's ethical structure.
In our consideration of ethics -- the moral evaluation of what is right and what is wrong -- we will need to overcome some common misconceptions people hold in this arena of ethical determination.
COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS PEOPLE HOLD
Misconception #1:
ALL TRUTH IS RELATIVE
The student at the lecture asserted, "That may be true for you, but not for me!" This is a popular expression of the notion that all "truth" is relative.
Rationality, however, must insist that truth is objective and transcendent not subjective and situational. In other words, truth is vastly different from personal opinion, since personal opinion doesn't determine reality.
For example, I can choose to believe that the earth is flat, but the reality of the matter is that the earth is spherical not flat! I may still choose to believe that it's flat, but I'm still wrong!
Another way of stating the claim that all truth is relative is to say, there are no absolutes! Yet in response to this claim I must ask, "Are you absolutely sure there are no absolutes?" It is humorous to note that the rejection statement -- "There are no absolutes." -- is, in fact, an absolute!
Is the statement "All truth is relative," true? No, it's impossible since it is a self-refuting statement, one which contradicts itself. It is, in fact, making a statement of absolute truth when it claims, there is no absolute truth!
Some examples of self-refuting propositions would include: You can't make a statement to me about truth (What did I just do?); I'm a truthful liar; I'm an honest thief; I'm a compassionate killer. All of these statements are false since they are internally contradictory and therefore self-defeating!
Hitler murdered six million Jews and if right and wrong are relative, then he was justified in acting on his system of beliefs.
Yet, what are the ramifications that flow from the premise of relativism which is the foundation of pantheism? If truth were relative, it would mean that morality and ethics are also relative and therefore personally determined. Sounds good in our free-spirited independent culture; doesn't it?
Applying this idea of moral relativism would say that each person is entitled to act on his or her own personal system of right and wrong regardless of the results.
"Hitler applied this philosophy and murdered six million Jews. And if right and wrong are relative, then he was just as entitled to act on his system of belief as you or I. 'That's absurd!' you say. And that's exactly my point."[2]
To continue to assert the idea of moral and ethical relativism is absurd. It is an attempt to construct an imaginary world filled with chaos. A world that few, if any, would be desirous to inhabit.
There are no relativists who expect to be treated relatively.
For example, while letting your car run outside the store one day, you see some-one getting into your car to drive off with it. You run outside and say, "You can't do that!" Their response is, "That's just your opinion, so why should I listen to you?" You tell them that it's wrong to take your car. They remind you that truth is relative, and their opinion is just as valid as yours.
This little scenario illustrates well the truth that, "There are no relativists who expect to be treated relatively."[3]
There is, in fact, absolute truth and therefore, an objective basis by which to evaluate morality and ethics. Another misconception people embrace is the idea that all views are equally valid.
Misconception #2:
ALL VIEWS ARE EQUALLY VALID
There are a number of variations on this statement, but all of them are really a restatement of the first misconception that all truth is relative. Another way to express this is to say that all religious views are equally valid. Adherents to this view would argue that one true religion is impossible.
Although an evaluation of this misconception is a mine field in light of potential reactions, we will attempt to critique its veracity. In undertaking this task, consider some examples from life and history that will shed light on our discussion.
If you had a brain tumor that was cancerous and needed to be treated, whose opinion would be more valid -- a brain surgeon or your local plumber? If all views were equally valid, then it wouldn't matter whose opinion you accept.
Mutually exclusive or contradictory statements cannot be true at the same time. - Aristotle
Consider the Middle Age's question of the centricity of our solar system. Two views were competing for acceptance --one which believed the earth to be the center of the solar system, while the other held the sun to be the center.
Are each of these views equally valid and true? Since these views are mutually exclusive both cannot be true at the same time. Investigation and evidence proves the falsity of earth centricity and the truthfulness of sun centricity.
Let's apply this same reasoning to the religious arena as we consider the question of Jesus' identity. Christianity claims that Jesus is God.[4] Islam asserts he is a great prophet, but not God. And Judaism and Hinduism believe Jesus to be a great moral teacher, but nothing more. Can all these views be equally valid when they are contradictory? Of course not. Such a conclusion is absurd!
Therefore, all views cannot be equally valid nor true! One must, therefore, look to the evidence available to observe that which is true apart from our opinion.
Misconception #3:
IT'S WRONG TO FORCE YOUR VIEWS ON ANOTHER PERSON
This statement is deceptive, because it has an element of truth; but it does not state the heart of the issue accurately.
First, no person has the ability to force you to believe anything. The old adage says it well, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Therefore, it's impossible to "force" a person to believe something; since believing is a matter of willful choice.
Secondly, most, if not all, would agree that it is unacceptable to use force, manipulation or coercion to attempt to persuade a person.
When these first two issues are cleared up, we see that the real issue underlying this misconception is that some people falsely think it is wrong to hold one view above another; since they believe all "truth" is relative.
A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!
One result of this third misconception is to falsely think that it's unacceptable to attempt to prove that any particular view in question is false. Yet those who hold this view forcibly argue that their view should be adopted over and above another.
This was clearly demonstrated to me recently while lecturing at the State University of New York at Buffalo. After my lecture one student insisted that it was wrong for me to "force my views on people." This, of course, is impossible since each person decides what they will believe.
I looked at her and gently and kindly replied, "What are you trying to do to me right now with your views?" After a moment of silence, I answered my own question by observing, "You're trying to force your views on me!" A friend of hers involved in the discussion looked at her and said, "He's right."
Therefore, the real issue is -- is it acceptable to attempt to persuade someone to a particular view while preserving their freedom to accept or reject that view? Yes, it is; and we readily do it all the time in the market place of ideas. Let's look at a couple of pointed illustrations concerning the legitimate use of persuasion.
If a friend of yours was thinking about committing suicide, wouldn't you try to convince him to the contrary? We have, in fact, a moral responsibility to communicate truth to others for their own well- being. Persuasion can be both morally right and the responsible thing to do.
If a research chemist found the cure for AIDS, would it be acceptable for him to keep it quiet and tell no one; since he wouldn't want to force his views on anyone else? Of course not! Rather, he should communicate the truth as clearly and gently as possible and allow each person to choose whether to accept or reject the solution.
Now that we've looked at some false notions about truth, let's look at the proper foundation for truth.
THE PROPER FOUNDATION FOR TRUTH
So far, we have seen that objective and absolute truth does indeed exist and that this truth is not relative. We have discussed that not all views are equally valid, because some views are false and others are true. And we have considered the legitimacy of persuasively discussing one's views in order to convince.
Absolute truth is evident in the mathematical question of what two plus two equals when expressed by a whole number integer base ten. There is only one right answer and an infinite number of wrong answers. And your math professor wouldn't be rude or narrow-minded to insist that four is the only right answer!
Since there are absolute laws, does it not stand to reason, that there must be a Law Giver? Since there is ultimate truth does it not suggest that there must be one who is Ultimately True? This Law Giver, therefore, must be the source of both natural law and special revelation.
I am, of course, talking about God, the Creator, the ultimate Law Giver and source of all truth.
Commenting on the issue of authority, Dr. Norman Geisler observes, "There is nothing wrong with considering the ultimate authority to be the ultimate authority. If an absolutely morally perfect God exists, then by his very nature he is the ultimate authority for what is good and what is not."[5]
Truth is objective because God exists outside ourselves; it is universal because God is above all; it is constant because God is eternal.
David Wells in his book, No Place for Truth, echoes this same idea when he discusses the writers of the Scriptures by stating, "It was not merely true to them; it was not merely true in their time; it was not true approximately. What God had given was true universally, absolutely, and enduringly."[6]
Josh McDowell in his book, Right From Wrong, rightly argues, "Truth is objective because God exists outside ourselves; it is universal because God is above all; it is constant because God is eternal."[7]
We must realize, "It is impossible to arrive at an objective, universal, and constant standard of truth and morality without bringing God onto stage."[8]
Therefore, there is only one source for objective absolute truth: God. But there are two avenues through which it has been revealed: special revelation and natural law. Natural law includes the make-up of the world and the moral absolutes that are observable and deducible from evidence in our world. Note that these absolutes are observed by us, not determined by us.
Examples of natural law include the fact that most people agree that the murder of innocent people is wrong, that the willful starvation of young children is wrong, and the violent act of rape is morally wrong. Yet natural law must always be tested by God's spoken revelation to mankind. Consider the following example of God's revelation.
Articulate news commentator, Ted Koppel, in his commencement address at Duke University, gave insight to moral absolutes when he stated:
"We have spent five thousand years as a race of rational human beings trying to drag ourselves out of the primeval slime by searching for truth and . . . moral absolutes. In place of Truth we have discovered facts; for moral absolutes we have substituted moral ambiguity. We now communicate with everyone . . . and say absolutely nothing . . . . Our society finds Truth too strong a medicine to digest undiluted. In its purest form Truth is not a polite tap on the shoulder; it is a howling reproach. What Moses brought down from Mount Sinai were not Ten Suggestions . . . they are Commandments. Are, not were."[9]
"The Ten Commandments, which were given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai, represent the most famous codification of absolute truth in the history of mankind."[10]
Since there is absolute truth, there are certain beliefs, actions and views that are right and many views that are false. Therefore, we can evaluate the ethical and moral rightness of an action by comparing it to an absolute and universal moral standard.
THREE TESTS FOR ETHICAL EVALUATION
"Ethics deal with what ought to be, not what is."[11] Seeking to ethically evaluate an action or moral system apart from an absolute moral basis is like jumping into a car and driving to an unknown city without a road map or any sense of which direction to travel.
Therefore, we need a moral compass or yardstick by which to measure and discern the moral rightness of a particular action or ethical statement. We now turn our attention to three criteria by which to accomplish this.
First, is the means by which an action or an event is carried out. What method does one use to accomplish a task or an objective? Is the means hard work, honesty, lies, theft, murder, force, selling goods or whatever feels right to me? Should I rob a bank to feed my family or pay for my son's education? Should I work at a job to earn the money? This illustration reflects the question, "Is it right to accomplish something good if immoral means are used?" No, it is not morally right to do so!
Second, what is the motive behind the action or thought? Is it love, concern, compassion, kindness, or is it greed, selfishness, pride or self-promotion? Proper motive alone, however, is not a sufficient test to determine the rightness of an action. One could have an altruistic motive and yet, the means accomplishing the task be faulty.
Consider, for example, a person's desire to know and communicate with God, the Creator. The great Christian philosopher and writer, Augustine, observed, "you [God] made us for yourself and our hearts [of all mankind] find no peace until they rest in you."[12]
We have been created with a desire and a need to know God. Therefore, is it moral to seek to know that God? Yes, but there are both morally acceptable and morally unacceptable means by which to do this.
The end may justify the use of good means, but it does not justify the use of any means, certainly not evil ones.
For example, pagan religions of the ancient Middle East were involved in child sacrifices to appease and commune with their gods.[13] The motive might be positive, yet the means and the results are morally and ethically wrong.
Why is it wrong? It's wrong because of the immoral means and the harmful manifestations it produces. Yet, most critically, it is wrong because the Absolute Law Giver, God the Creator, has said, "Thou shall not murder!"[14]
Third, we are to be concerned with the manifestation or the intended "results" of the action. Does my action cause people to be harmed or helped, truth to be propagated or lies to be embraced? It's not enough that my motive be pure and the means be moral; but to be comprehensively morally good, I must also have the intention of a good moral result.
For example, a dearly loved friend might be suffering great pain due to a temporary illness; and out of compassion and concern, I might be motivated to ease that pain. But if, as the physician, I ease his pain by knowingly injecting him with an overdose of morphine, my act is morally wrong. This situation reflects the moral motive of compassion, the means of medicine, but an immoral result, which is premeditated murder.
Philosopher Norman Geisler, comments on the means when he states: "The end may justify the use of good means, but it does not justify the use of any means, certainly not evil ones."[15]
If something is truly right, it must flow from the proper foundation of absolute truth and pass the tests of motive, means, and manifestation reflected by objective and universal truth.
We now have a basis by which to evaluate the ethical content and structure of various forms of pantheism. We will look at the aspects of means, motives and manifestations in our critique.
PANTHEISTIC ETHICS EXPRESSED
We now turn our attention to an observation and evaluation of the ethics involved in various forms of pantheism. Observation will bring to light the moral relativism and the ethical subjectivism that is embraced by every variety of pantheism, including Hinduism, paganism, and witchcraft.
Consider these statements from teachers of pantheistic Hinduism:
"All good and all evil is relative to the individual point of growth . . . but, in the highest sense, there can be neither good nor evil."[16] - Swami Prabhavananda
"Good and evil are one and the same."[17] - Swami Vinekananda
"When your intellect has cleared itself of delusions, you will become indifferent to the results of action, present or future."[18] - Bhagavad-Gita, Hindu scriptures
Dr. Norman Geisler, critiques the pantheistic ethical system by saying,
"Hence, what difference would it make whether we praise or curse, counsel or rape, love or murder someone? If there is no final moral difference between these actions, then absolute moral responsibilities do not exist. Cruelty and non-cruelty are ultimately the same."[19]
Philosopher and lecturer Michael Horner also comments on this pantheistic ethical system by observing, "If all is one and all distinctions are illusionary, then good and evil are illusionary distinctions. As Swami Vinekananda put it, 'Good and evil are one and the same.' Try to convince an Auschwitz survivor of that!"[20]
Pagans and witches express their ethical views in more positive terms than that of Hinduism. Yet, they still reflect the moral relativism and subjective ethics that accompanies pantheism.
This was reflected in a conversation with a local pagan when I asked him, "Is there any such thing as right and wrong in your scheme of things?" He replied by saying, "Oh, yes. Only in the essence that it's a learning thing. I don't think there's any ultimate right and wrong. But as you progress through life there's right and wrong that you learn from . . . . Morality is a subjective experience."[21]
If it is subjective, however, it can change from day to day and from circumstance to circumstance. This is reflected by witch Stewart Farrar in the book, What Witches Do. Farrar considers the question of what is good and evil in the ethics of witches and pagans and states, "A thing is good for me until I feel it's not right for me . . . . It is . . . man's instinctive awareness of what is good or evil . . . ."[22]
"If there is no absolute moral standard, then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong."[23]
But, if right and wrong are determined by how I feel, and how I feel can change, then what I perceive to be right or wrong can change too. Where does the adoption of a subjective ethical system and the resulting loss of an objective moral standard lead?
Richard Halverson, former chaplain for the U.S. Senate, gives an answer to this question when he argues,
"The abandonment of an absolute moral standard leads irresistibly to the absence of ethics and morality. The result is that each person determines his or her own moral standard. Humans, then, become their own gods and decide, each in their own way, what is good and what is evil. The end result is that evil becomes good and good becomes evil. That is upside down morality!"[24]
The Hebrew prophet Isaiah observed and condemned this inverted morality when he said, "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"[25]
PANTHEISTIC ETHICS EVALUATED
Scott Cunningham, well-known Wiccan, in discussing folk magic, considers the proper use of magic by saying, "It is the intention and goal of the magician working with it that determines whether this energy is used for helpful or harmful ends."[26]
Cunningham mentions two aspects -- intention or motive, and ends or manifestation -- by which to evaluate the harm or helpfulness of an action, yet the basis of evaluation in paganism is subjective opinion.
As witch Stewart Farrar comments, "The witch's own conscience is and must be the final arbiter, and if it rebels against some suggestions from High Priest, High Priestess, or anyone else, he must follow his conscience."[27]
Witch Doreen Valiente proclaims, "Witches do not believe that true morality consists of observing a list of thou-shall-nots. Their morality can be summed up in one sentence, Do what you will, so long as it harms none."[28]
The Wiccan Rede, "Do what you will, so long as it harms none," is the ethical foundation of witches and pagans. Yet one must ask the question, "How does one determine whether the action, motive, or result is harmful?" While lecturing at the University of Illinois on the topic of witchcraft and the occult, I asked a witch during our discussion time how she would determine objectively if some-thing was harmful. After a long pause she responded by saying, "I'm not sure."
If there are no absolutes beyond man's ideas then we are merely left with conflicting opinions.
Yet for us to evaluate if something is harmful or helpful, there must be an objective standard by which to determine harm; and the ethics of witchcraft has no such objective standard, since by its own admission it is subjective. Therefore, it fails to be a sufficient standard by which to determine moral rightness.
Therefore "harm" becomes what I determine it to be, a personal experience, or a socially agreed upon idea, but certainly not an absolute basis by which to rightly evaluate the moral goodness of any action.
Granted, the moral structure of witchcraft seeks to be positive and life-affirming; but it is still subjective, relative, and personally determined. Stewart Farrar expressed it well in saying, "A thing is good for me until I feel it's not right for me . . . ."[29]
"If there are no absolutes beyond man's ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups whose moral judgements conflict. We are merely left with conflicting opinions."[30]
THE RESULTS OF PANTHEISTIC ETHICS
This moral subjectivism can lead down many different paths. Without the moral anchor of absolutes, the ship on which subjective ethics sails will drift with the prevailing winds and will inevitably suffer shipwreck. This shipwreck need not be a sudden crash but rather a slow moral deterioration.
Author Chuck Swindoll discusses the process of moral deterioration by observing,
"Deterioration is never sudden. No person suddenly becomes base. Slowly, almost imperceptively, certain things are accepted that once were rejected. Things once considered hurtful are now secretly tolerated. At the outset it appears harmless, perhaps even exciting; but the wedge it brings leaves a gap that grows wider as moral erosion joins hands with spiritual decay. The gap becomes a canyon. That way which seems right becomes, in fact, the way of death."[31]
In the article, "An Open Letter to the Witchcraft and Magical Community," this observation is stated:
"Rationalization is very subtle at times. Evil is first abhorred, then ignored, then tolerated, then partici-pated in with a very compromising and sometimes socially accepted means. What was once considered evil is now good and what was considered good is now evil."[32]
Specific examples will illustrate the deficiency of this subjective ethic. Consider the words from this ritual done by nationally known Wiccan, Selena Fox:
"May there be understanding and love among all people of all ages, of all races, of all nations, of all sexual orientations, of all lifestyles and of all religions . . . and whatever your particular spiritual orientation is . . . call to Mother Earth if it feels right for you."[33]
Simply because something "feels right for you," does not make it morally right in the least bit. Is it right to accept all sexual orientations without regard to any objective ethical and moral evaluation? If so, could we not argue that pedophile activity, which is sexual activity with children, is acceptable?
But you might say that that is illegal, and you would be right; but that does not answer the question of moral and ethical rightness. If you say that it's wrong, I will ask, "On what basis do you make your conclusion?" This scenario is a logical conclusion to an ethical system that is subjective and which advocates the principle, "If it feels right, it is right."
Let's apply the harm principle to two conflicting opinions concerning the question of what happens to a person at and following death.
The first view is that of reincarnation, which is held by witches, pagans and the entirety of pantheism.[34] "The idea of reincarnation seems to witches to be not only much older, but more reasonable and right than the concept of only one short life, to be followed by heaven for the righteous and hell for the wicked . . ."[35]
The second view is that of physical resurrection and moral accountability held by Christianity, Islam and Judaism. The New Testament declares, "It is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment."[36]
This conflict in truth claims is neither imaginary nor trite; rather it's an issue of incredible importance and consequence.
If the idea of reincarnation is wrong, then to believe it will ultimately result in great and eternal harm for the individual. Reincarnation, in fact, would not have its name carved on the pillars of heaven, but rather on the gates of hell.
The rejection of moral absolutes and the acceptance of subjectivism as a basis for morality and ethics is a dead end street. It is like driving a sports car at a high rate of speed down the street, only to find out your brakes don't work!
Josh McDowell in his book, Right From Wrong, observes that when people
". . . reject truth as an objective standard, their view of life becomes distorted. When their view of life becomes distorted, they easily accept the counterfeits. When they accept the counterfeits, they begin to make wrong choices. When they make wrong choices, they suffer the consequences. The choice is, quite literally, truth or consequences."[37]
Will you choose the shifting sand of moral relativism or the unchanging foundation of absolute truth?
Endnotes
[1] Margot Adler. Drawing Down the Moon. Boston, MA: Beacon Press,1986, 25.
[2] Larry Poland. "Numbia: Where Absolutes are Absolutely Obsolete." Collegiate Challenge, 1977, 2-3.
[3] Josh McDowell. Right From Wrong. Dallas, TX: Word, 1994, 78.
[4] Josh McDowell. Jesus: A Biblical Defense of His Deity. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life,1989.
[5] Norman L. Geisler. Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1989, 21-22.
[6] David Wells. No Place for Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1993, 259-260.
[7] Josh McDowell. Right From Wrong. Dallas, TX: Word, 1994, 82.
[8] Ibid, 81.
[9] Cal Thomas. The Death of Ethics in America. Waco, TX: Word, 1988, 133-136.
[10] Josh McDowell. Right From Wrong. Dallas, TX: Word, 1994, 91.
[11] Norman L. Geisler. Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989, 23.
[12] Saint Augustine. Confessions. trans, R. S. Pine-Coffin. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1961, 21.
[13] 2 Kings 16:3-4
[14] Exodus 20:13
[15] Norman L. Geisler. Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989, 25.
[16] Swami Prabhavananda. "Appendix II: The Gita and War." Bhagavad-Gita, 140.
[17] Michael Horner. "What's Wrong with the New Age Movement." By author: n.d., 2.
[18] Bhagavad-Gita. Bergerfield: The New American Library, 1972, 41.
[19] Norman Geisler. Perspectives. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life, 1984, 92.
[20] Michael Horner. "What's Wrong with the New Age Movement. By author, n.d., 2.
[21] Taped (with permission) phone conversation with a local pagan on 7 July 1992.
[22] Stewart Farrar. What Witches Do. Custer, WA: Phoenix, 1983, 39.
[23] Francis Schaeffer. How Should We Then Live? Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming, 1976, 145.
[24] Cal Thomas. The Death of Ethics in America. Waco, TX: Word,1988, 33-34.
[25] Isaiah 5:20, NASB.
[26] Scott Cunningham. The Truth About Witchcraft Today. St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn, 1988, 39-40.
[27] Stewart Farrar. What Witches Do. Custer, WA: Phoenix,1983, 41-42.
[28] Doreen Valiente. An ABC of Witchcraft. Custer, WA: Phoenix, 1973, 36.
[29] Stewart Farrar. What Witches Do. Custer, WA: Phoenix, 1983, 39.
[30] Josh McDowell. Right from Wrong. Dallas, TX: Word, 1994, 33.
[31] Chuck Swindoll. Growing Strong in the Seasons of Life. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1983, 94.
[32] Jack Roper. "An Open Letter to the Witchcraft and Magical Community." Milwaukee, WI: CARIS, 1986, 5.
[33] Geraldo Rivera. "Witches and Witchcraft." TV Program Transcript, 27 Oct. 1987, 8.
[34] Cunningham, 62 ; Farrar, 41 ; Valiente, 281.
[35] Doreen Valiente. An ABC of Witchcraft. Custer, WA: Phoenix, 1973, 36.
[36] Hebrews 9:27
[37] Josh McDowell. Right From Wrong. Dallas, TX: Word, 1994, 21.
© Jon Rittenhouse, April 1996
Reprint permission granted if printed in entirety