Hawkins Interview
Home > About the AR-chive > History > Early Apologia Web Content > WN02-01 >
An Interview with Craig Hawkins, author of Witchcraft: Exploring the World of Wicca
__________________
Apologia Report: Did your target audience change between the time you decided to write this book and the day it was published?
CH: No, it was always primarily geared for a Christian audience.
--
AR: On page 17 you write: "There is much that occurs in occultic circles that I will not discuss, such as diabolical or literally dangerous or deadly practices." Beginning with the first paragraph on the next page you share your reasoning for this. Do you feel there is ever a place for such discussion?
CH: Rarely, though there could be amongst people who really have to know or understand. Maybe on par with some fellow researchers who need to share some information just to get a handle on something. But a lot of it I feel is inappropriate in light of Paul's admonition in Scripture to "be wise concerning good, simple concerning evil" and that "it is a shame to speak of the things they do in darkness." I feel that too many books pander to that hyped stuff and the stuff we really don't need to put in our minds. With this book I'm only telling the theory, and even then I'm limiting it in that I'm not explaining everything in detail. I'm explaining how witches think their practices work. We talk about astrology of example, but you are not told how to make a horoscope or practice using it.
---
AR: We were glad to see you mention (p33) that witches "are not involved in animal or human sacrifices," and why.
CH: Often, Christians in their well-meaning zeal to expose falsehood and ungodly practices in the cults and the occult, proceed with the zeal "not according to knowledge" spoken of in Proverbs and the Book of Romans. Thus, they unfortunately read into people's views the practices they expect are occurring. They attribute to witches or other occultists things that are really not done or believed in reality. We dare not read into their views and practices things that we've heard they do. If that happens, we lose the very people we are trying to reach. If they can see that we don't know what we are talking about (and they will readily see that), then we are not going to have credibility in their eyes. Just as bad, with other people on the sidelines, either experimenting with the occult or having no interest yet simply drawn by the discovery of the dialog (this happens), we lose all credibility as well.
It is ironic here that, in the name of truth, people intentionally or unintentionally resort to falsehood while trying to refute something. That is nonsense.
---
AR: You write: "Whether people can actually contact the dead or other disincarnate spirits is irrelevant; the practice of attempting to is unequivocally forbidden, and the one who attempts such is under the wrath of God" (p111). Obedience to Scripture is clearly the opposite pole to the practice of occultism, isn't it?
CH: Exactly. You can't get more antithetical to God in purposes. In Leveticus 20:6 God likens occult practices to spiritual prostitution. You can't get much stronger language than that. Scripture also says that witchcraft (the word, in essence, is magic, the working of sorcery, divination) is the same "as the sin of rebellion."
And God is not holding back anything good from us. "No good thing will I withhold from those who walk uprightly before me," He says. God gives us the desires of our heart; the things that are truly from Him and good for us, He's not holding out. If we try to usurp or take anything to ourselves, we are only harming ourselves. I think of Adam and Eve, the classic illustration of this. The evil one sold them the idea, "Hey, God's holding out on you. God knows you shall become like Him if you partake of this fruit."
AR: Another irony of human nature is the phenomena of absolute faith in unbiblical, irrational magic. Temptation in areas of curiosity has always been a great whirlpool of eternal danger with regard to occultism. It seems, does it not, that certain people are inclined to succumb to biblically naive fascination with thresholds through which God has forbidden entrance?
CH: We certainly believe in the value of the mind and reason. As it is written in Proverbs, it is the glory of God to hide things and it is the glory of kings to find them;" search these things out. That is true of all people. We are not against curiosity per se, but there are limits. There are things that God has forbidden. Of course, the word "occult" comes from the Latin "occultus" which means the secret, the hidden. The prescriptive part of that, the second part of the definition, is the forbidden, the illicit, the off-limits. In light of this context I am reminded of the passage in Deuteronomy which says, "The secret things belong to God, but the things He has revealed belong to us and our children's children for all generations" (29:20). God clearly has a line and if we cross that it is one of the names for sin, transgression: to go beyond, or to transgress the boundary.
---
AR: Popular culture sensationalizes "the forbidden" in such a way that it turns this context around and makes it a doorway to mysterious and unexplained phenomena.
CH: This problem is compounded by the uncertainty of our society, the breakdown of traditional values, and the idea of wanting to know the future. I am someone who has never been involved in the occult, yet done extensive research. I have had people who have been in the occult tell me that the allurement and attraction -- I can use the term "lust" -- for the occult was as strong as anything they have ever known regarding any other type of temptation. Those who play or dabble with it really don't know that they are literally opening Pandora's Box here and are in great jeopardy for doing so.
---
AR: The idea of "forbidden" as a popularized, now-attractive word and the message of our culture to "question authority" seems to go hand-in-hand. An old taboo is a giddy thing to taunt. Don't you think it gives the impression of having power over old fashioned religious superstition.
CH: It does. In reading a lot of neopagan literature it is common to find the claim that Christianity is a fear-based religion, that Christians are ignorantly fearful and intolerant. The neopagans see themselves as having gone beyond this and discovering what is the avaunt guard science of today. Christian's fear, as they see it, is irrational and misplaced. They have something that we don't, a secret knowledge. As a result, they are not any more enlightened than Christians, but somehow more noble because they were willing to go beyond the "off-limits" signs.
Philip Johnson's fine book Reason in the Balance has a chapter on education in which he explains that the chant of many in higher educational circles is to question authority; not their own, mind you, but traditional boundaries. Those that do are somehow better than those who don't.
---
AR: Here is a terminology and application question: Can you give an example of witches that are not neopagan?
CH: This question is debated among scholars and among witches. I had a whole chapter on this taken from the book due to the factor of length. Basically, all contemporary witchcraft flows from the work of Gerald Gardner. Yet, today witchcraft is just one of myriad forms in neopaganism. Ironically, the neopagan movement itself came out of Garnerian witchcraft.
---
AR: How extensive has your contact been with witches in preparation for writing this book?
CH: I can't say I've interviewed hundreds and hundreds, but I've certainly talked to a number of influential witches in both debate and dialog.
--
AR: More than once, we've noticed that you simplify the general meaning of occultism (p118, 119) by describing it as "divination, magic/sorcery, and spiritism." We believe this is fairly unique, ironically almost novel for a Christian writer, and very helpful. Is it your experience that most people think they know what the occult is, but in reality, don't really understand it?
CH: Absolutely. I give the credit for this to Elliot Miller. He has a similar system for understanding the occult. Another important thing to remember is that most occultists have the same views regarding magic.
---
AR: To package the general meaning of occultism in the four-word segment, divination, magic/sorcery, and spiritism, seems fairly unique to us as a concise handle for description purposes. Is this uncommon in your experience as well?
CH: In my reading I have not encountered it -- and I've read everything I could find. I've seen many of the articles in standard reference works. Most have had different classification systems and I have to say that they were not really complete. They missed elements, certainly on the contemporary scene.
---
AR: You indicate that some occultists are aware of spiritual danger (p119, 139). How common would you say this is? How perceptive do you feel the average witch is regarding this? Have you found it to be a door for the gospel?
CH: The vast majority of occultists I am familiar with have warned about dangers that they have encountered or that "you" will encounter even reading about the material, let alone practicing occultism. They talk about very serious things like an unwanted possession. (I have to qualify it as "unwanted" because some witches believe there are such things as desired possessions. One even felt it was a sign of the ill-health of the neopagan movement that there wasn't more possession going on.)
On the other hand, most believe they have a handle on it. For some it is a special way of doing a spell, or they say there are bad spirits, but they don't deal with them. If malevolent spirits happen to turn up, neopagans typically feel they have a spell or incantation that will take care of the situation.
As far as the context being a door for evangelism, witches tend to dismiss its significance in my experience. Miriam Simos -- Starhawk is her craft name -- in the book Spiral Dance, describes demonic influence as being the result of "monsters" from your subconscious mind. They are part of you or they are just some other psychic entity that you need not be fearful of.
---
AR: On page 139 you pose questions for the witch regarding spiritual danger. Can you share some responses regarding these questions that you've asked witches in person?
CH: While some dismiss it, occultists still have a real problem explaining these malevolent beings that are harassing them. They have trouble explaining where these bad spirits come from when they only practice "good" magick. We should to ask the neopagan what they think the origin of these spirits is. Ask, "Why are you having to bother with them in the first place?" As Christians we do have an answer. We know where they come from and what they are about.
---
AR: Witches are proud of their Wiccan Rede (pronounced "reed") or code of ethics, "An it harm none, do what you will." How important would you rate responding to the Rede as an evangelistic strategy?
CH: It is quite significant. I recommend asking, "Where did that originate? It sounds an awful lot like the Golden Rule of Christianity." I argue that, as Francis Schaeffer would say, "it is borrowed capital from Christianity." They don't like to hear it. However, I want to push the issue. The Rede talks about not harming anybody. Witches often claim quite vocally that they don't harm anyone or "lay hexes on people" for example. They claim to just do nice things. Well, I recommend asking, "But Why?" The typical response reminds me of the all-purpose "Because!" used by young children.
If they really believe both good and evil are necessary (they redefine evil), then what's the problem with doing evil? Many leading neopagans say evil has to exist in a balanced fashion in order for life to exist itself.
Most, if not all, neopagans agree with the evolutionary theory known as natural selection. Thus, we can argue, "If survival of the fittest is true, isn't the Rede an artificial standard without support?"
Another point of contention is this: If there are no universal or absolute truths, how can the Rede be seen as a code of conduct that others are held to?
---
AR: There was an item that stood out to us in your earlier Christian Research Journal articles on witchcraft which we didn't remember seeing in the book. After reading the articles we came away with a sense of compassion for these poor souls because what they endorse is essentially wholesale and free-style invention of ritual without regard to potential conflicts in standards. How would you respond?
CH: I was doing a radio interview with a talk-show in the Denver area. An individual called in and it was apparent right away that he was a witch. He objected to what I had been saying on the show about what witches do and don't do saying, "I would never do that." I replied, "I can appreciate that perhaps you wouldn't do that, but you can't tell me that others shouldn't do it, or that it would be wrong for them to do it."
Here's the example I gave him. He was saying, "We don't do this and that." If a coven member decides that he or she wants to shack up with the spouse of another coven member, as a witch you may not approve of it, but you can not really say it is wrong. If you do, you are getting in the way of their morality. He couldn't answer me. He admitted that I was right about the conflict inherent with his views.
Vivian Crowley, a high priestess of both Gardnerian and Alexanderian witchcraft, writes for example: "In the [ritual] circle there are no absolutes, no rights or wrongs."
---
AR: Isn't it unfortunate that (from what we have seen, at least) most professing ex-witches within recent evangelical history (Mike Warnke, John Todd, Bill Schnoebelen, Eric Pryor) have been frauds. Would you please comment? Can you think of any names I have left out, or incorrectly included?
CH: There are others, but I think the four that you mentioned are the most glaring examples. I wouldn't take anybody off the list that you just mentioned. I think there are a number of lessons to be learned from this. The claim of being an ex-witch and now Christian offers a deceitful status that I'm afraid is often prematurely promoted within the church. We put them up on a pedestal and it can be incredibly destructive. It also encourages people to make up copycat stories in order to become a celebrity, and instantaneously at that.
I know why the problem comes about. It happens in large part because few Christians understand the basics about witchcraft and satanism. We must also stop being so naive as to believe wild stories without checking them out thoroughly. These frauds do much damage in giving a false image of neopaganism that some Christians take into evangelistic encounters and lose their chance to be heard because they end up misrepresenting the neopagan's views. It reinforces the neopagan perception that Christians are out of touch.
AR: Isn't it a shame that sensationalism sells more harmful literature on the occult in the church than does accuracy for the more academic texts?
CH: A book came out by some obscure publisher years ago titled something like, Thirteen Things Witches Hope You Never Find Out. It carried the message that "we've intercepted this secret communication describing what all witches are committed to practicing." The simple fact is that anyone who knows witchcraft also knows there is no central authority in the movement. Witches are fiercely autonomous and independent. The idea that all witches are involved in any conspiratorial sense is fiction.
A further problem is that material like this attempts to give advice on how to evangelize witches. The content is often unsound, wrong, and counterproductive.
The book suggested that witches are out to take over Christian churches. The truth is that most witches don't want anything to do with Christians or their churches. Such fears on the part of Christians are not only unfounded, they further contribute to the image of Christians being naive. Witches find it quite amusing to publish among themselves news of these foolish Christian perceptions when they come across them.
---
AR: There are two current sources I would like to ask you about. On the sensational, wrong approach side: Exposing Witchcraft in the Church, by Rick Godwin (Creation House, 1997). Any response?
CH: I haven't come across it, but I am familiar with him and his work. He is not known for accuracy. Going on his reputation and what I've seen by him in the past I would expect it would be very sensational and probably not very helpful.
AR: On the secular side, an impressive social science approach is Magical Religion and Modern Witchcraft, James R. Lewis, ed. (State University of New York Press, 1997). Any response?
CH: No, I need to know about that. This is why I need to subscribe to Apologia Report!
AR: Who and/or what are other sources in the field that you would recommend? Are you aware of other book-length Christian responses to witchcraft?
CH: There is precious little. All that comes to mind are two: When the Devil Dares Your Kids, by Bob and Gretchen Passantino (Servant, 1991), and Brooks Alexander in the SCP Journal (16:3, 1991), "Witchcraft from the Dark Ages to the New Age."
AR: Sometimes just as helpful, are there any Christian sources on witchcraft, satanism, or occultism in general that you would not recommend? Examples that comes to mind are Pigs in the Parlor, by Charles and Francis Hunter; The Beautiful Side of Evil, by Johanna Michaelsen; Satan's Underground, by Lauren Stratford; He Came to Set the Captives Free, and Prepare for War, both by Rebecca Brown; and Dead Air, by Bob Larson.
CH: I would just agree with these being bad examples, but don't care to focus on them.
---
AR: Here is a group of questions which probe where you feel you may be headed in your career:
Have you any plans to do related future work in this area?
CH: I am taking a break for now. Eventually I'll be publishing a good deal more. I have a lot of material that I haven't used yet.
AR: What are your current projects?
CH: Much of my time is devoted to the development of Apologetics Information Ministry, an organization I started several years ago. I have a number of lectures that I've compiled over the years. I've never made them available together in manuscript form as a group and now wish to do so.
AR: What are your goals for AIM?
CH: That is my full-time focus. We simply wish to make materials available on apologetics. We are planning to freely offer them on the World Wide Web. We do not yet have our site up. [Note: When it does go up, we will provide a link here and, of course, announce it in Apologia Report.]
AR: We understand you are working toward a PhD. How is it coming?
CH: Right now I'm working on another masters degree. I hope to get yet another besides this one before moving on to a doctorate. So, Lord willing, that will be three masters and then a PhD. The areas are apologetics, which I've received a masters in, biblical and systematic theology at the present, and I'm also interested in getting an M.A. in philosophy and ethics.
AR: What are your goals in the teaching occupation?
CH: I've been teaching individual classes at Simon Greenleaf, which is now part of Trinity International University, as well as at other schools for eight years now. However, I don't plan to be a full-time professor. AIM is where I expect to have my focus with teaching, speaking, and writing flowing from that.
AR: And AIM consists of?
CH: Besides myself there is Chris Partin, a volunteer Research Assistant. He has a separate full-time job and lives in the Diamond Bar [California] area. We've been doing our own radio program for the last two-and-a-half years as God has provided the funds.
---
AR: Readers might wonder how you came to specialize in occultism. What's the story?
CH: It goes back to CRI when I came there in 1985. George Mather was leaving at the time and I was asked to take on a number of areas in which he had specialized. The Lord continued to encourage me in my focus on occultism.
AR: What is your understanding and experience of spiritual warfare?
CH: Without sensationalism, I think it is reality. You can't deal with the subject of occultism as a Christian and not see how real spiritual warfare is. The evangelical community and apologists in general tend to live like materialists in this regard. We live as if spiritual warfare does not exist. This appears to be in reaction to the excesses of sensational nonsense. We've gone to the opposite extreme. We tend to be naive regarding spiritual warfare.
AR: Do you feel your experience is more unique due to the line of work you are in?
CH: Yes, I do. Not in a superior sense. I believe that every effective ministry can expect spiritual warfare. I believe the cults and especially the occult is the devil's front yard. This field is his baby, his toy, his favorite thing, his most potent weapon. Anybody that would dare to expose it and bring what the devil is doing into the light is in for quite a time. Obviously, I believe God is sovereign and in control of the devil, but within God's sovereignty there is a lot of latitude.
AR: Any last remarks?
CH: My greatest concern, as it applies to neopagans, is that we've got to introduce them to a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Many neopagans have a mistaken understanding of Christianity due to a poor example in their background. Christianity is not "churchianity." It is having a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ.