Satanism: An
Evangelical Engagement
I recently had an opportunity to participate on a panel
discussion with a Satanist. In
preparation for this I spent some time with The
Satanic Bible so as to better understand the worldview. In this piece I want to examine a
specific philosophical tension in The
Satanic Bible. As a prelude I
will narrow the scope of the analysis and then explain why so often
evangelicals misunderstand Satanism.
Scope of Engagement
First, this analysis is specifically in reference to the
version of Satanism as formulated by Anton LaVey—sometimes called LaVeyan
Satanism. The Church of Satan
(CoS) claims to be the official promulgator of this Satanism. There are a number of off-shoots from
the Church of Satan and also various developments within groups influenced by The Satanic Bible.
Excursus: After I had written the initial draft of
this article I sent it to the representative of Satanism that I had met at the
panel discussion. He is a Reverend
in The Church of Satan and he took exception to my use of the phrase “LaVeyan
Satanism.” The Church of Satan
asserts that they are the only legitimate Satanists today. So the phrase “LaVeyan Satanism” is
redundant in their minds. I wrote
the following to explain my use of the phrase.
_____________________________________
First, my
use of “LaVeyan Satanism” was simply following the lead of other
researchers. For example, James R.
Lewis is a professor in the department of philosophy and religious studies at
the University of Wisconsin. He
has published scholarly articles on Satanism and he uses the phrase “LaVeyan
Satanism.”[1]
Second, it
is simply not true that there is “only one form of Satanism.” From a strictly descriptive point of
view there are a number of groups that call themselves “Satanist.” I recognize that the Church of Satan as
an official body does not recognize the legitimacy of these other groups. Nevertheless, someone who is
researching Satanism will come across a number of groups that claim that
label. You are no doubt aware of
the various off-shoots from the Church of Satan such as Michael Aquino’s The
Temple of Set and Lord Egan’s (John Dewey Allee) The First Church of
Satan. There are also a number of
other groups online which claim to be in the Satanic orbit.[2]
You mention
that no one before LaVey had codified Satanism. There were, however, predecessors to LaVey’s brand of
Satanism. Consider the example of
Herbert Arthur Sloane’s “Our Lady of Endor Coven” which was formed in 1948.[3] There is even a letter from 1968 in
which Sloane gratefully acknowledges that Anton LaVey speaks kindly of him as a
devotee of Satanism for thirty years.[4]
In light of
all this and in hopes of helping to narrow the focus of my critique to make it
more understandable, I chose to use the phrase “LaVeyan Satanism.”[5]
Second, this piece will focus primarily on The Satanic Bible. There are other writings from Anton
LaVey and others but The Satanic Bible
is of primary importance. James R.
Lewis, in an essay devoted to a sociological analysis of The Satanic Bible, writes:
Satanists do not consciously regard
The Satanic Bible in the same way
traditional religionists regard their sacred texts. However, in the course of a research project on modern
Satanism conducted in 2000-2001, I discovered that The Satanic Bible is treated as an authoritative document which
effectively functions as scripture
within the Satanic community. In
particular, LaVey’s work is quoted to legitimate particular positions as well
as to de-legitimate the positions of other Satanists.[6]
Lewis adds, “Furthermore, however one might criticize and
depreciate it, The Satanic Bible is
still the single most influential document shaping the contemporary Satanic
movement.”[7]
Why Evangelicals
Misunderstand Satanism
Evangelicals have a supernaturalistic worldview which
affirms the extra-mental reality of God and other spiritual beings (i.e.,
angels and demons). Evangelicals
acknowledge a spiritual entity known as the Devil or Satan. This is conceived as a finite spiritual
being of great power which tempts and threatens the church.[8] Because evangelicals take the
ontological reality of Satan seriously they tend to believe that any other
group that invokes Satan must also likewise affirm the ontological reality of
Satan. This makes it difficult for
evangelicals to understand that LaVeyan Satanism is atheistic and does not
affirm the real existence of Satan.
A second reason that evangelicals have misunderstood
Satanism is that the evangelical church has listened to some grossly inadequate
sources to get its information about Satanism. In the 1980’s and early ‘90’s evangelicals were overly
influenced by Mike Warnke’s The Satan
Seller. Warnke claimed to be a
former Satanist who had met Anton LaVey.
Warnke spun tales of drugs, crime, ritualistic sacrifice and sex.[9] Warnke’s claims were debunked by
evangelical reporters as they investigated the time-line of Warnke’s life
demonstrating that his claims could not be true. John Smulo also highlights the fact that Warnke’s
description of Satanism does not match the LaVeyan version. In Smulo’s words:
To put it another way, Warnke is
proven fraudulent because his description of LaVeyan Satanism is in complete
contradiction with what LaVeyan Satanists themselves believe. Indeed, one would have difficulty
finding a form of Satanism during any time in history that matched Warnke’s
description.[10]
Evangelical’s failure to engage with the primary source of
Satanism—The Satanic Bible—led them
to drink from faulty informational sources such as Warnke.
Philosophical
Tensions in the Satanic Worldview
There is a fundamental contradiction within LaVeyan
Satanism. Examining two sets of
philosophical concepts will show the nature of this contradiction.
The first set of philosophical concepts revolve around
materialism and subjective ethics which are both created by the human agent and
evolving. Peter Gilmore, the
current high priest of Satanism in the Church of Satan, has written in a 2005
introduction to The Satanic Bible
that in reading The Satanic Bible “…I
found a common sense, rational, materialist philosophy, along with theatrical
ritual techniques meant as self-transformative psychodrama.”[11] Gilmore adds:
The philosophy presented in it is
an integrated whole, not a smorgasbord from which one pick and choose. It is meant only for a select few who
are epicurean, pragmatic, worldly, atheistic, fiercely individualistic,
materialistic, rational, and darkly poetic.[12]
Satanism is, thus, atheistic and materialistic in nature. Gilmore mentions the subjectivistic impulse in Satanism: “We Satanists owe
him [LaVey] our gratitude for symbolically opening the adamantine gates of
Hell, by giving form and structure to a philosophy that names us as the Gods of
our subjective universes.”[13] These metaphysical commitments set up
the ethical commitments of Satanism.
The following quotations from The
Satanic Bible illustrate the ethical trajectory of Satanism.
i. “Satan
represents all of the so-called sins, as they all lead to physical, mental, or
emotional gratification!” (#8 of “The Nine Satanic Statements,” p. 25)
ii. “I
break away from all conventions that do not lead to my earthly success and
happiness.” (p. 30)
iii. “No
creed must be accepted upon authority of a ‘divine’ nature. Religions must be put to the
question. No moral dogma must be
taken for granted—no standard of measurement deified. There is nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they
are the work of human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy!” (p. 31)
iv. “As
environments change, no human ideal standeth sure!” (p. 31)
v. “Are
we not all predatory animals by instinct?
If humans ceased wholly from preying upon each other, could they
continue to exist?” (p. 33)
vi. “Hate
your enemies with a whole heart, and if a man smite you on one cheek, SMASH him
on the other!; smite him hip and thigh, for self-preservation is the highest
law!” (p. 33)
vii. “Life
is the great indulgence—death, the great abstinence. Therefore, make the most of life—HERE AND NOW!” (p. 33)
viii.
“Say unto thine own heart, ‘I am mine own
redeemer.’” (p. 33)
ix. “Blessed
are the valiant, for they shall obtain great treasure—Cursed are the believers
in good and evil, for they are frightened by shadows!” (p. 34)
x. “Blessed
are those that believe in what is best for them, for never shall their minds be
terrorized—Cursed are the ‘lambs of God,’ for they shall be bled whiter than
snow!” (p. 34)
xi. “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.” (p. 46)
xii. “White
magic is supposedly utilized only for good or unselfish purposes, and black
magic, we are told, is used only for selfish or ‘evil’ reasons. Satanism draws no such dividing
line. Magic is magic, be it used
to help or hinder. The Satanist,
being the magician, should have the ability to decide what is just, and then
apply the powers of magic to attain his goals.” (p. 51)
xiii.
“You should act upon your natural instincts, and
then, if you cannot perform without feeling guilty, revel in your guilt.” (p.
53)
xiv. “We
are tired of denying ourselves the pleasures of life which we deserve. Today, as always, man needs to enjoy
himself here and now, instead of waiting for his reward in heaven. So, why not have a religion based on
indulgence? Certainly it is
consistent with the nature of the beast.
We are no longer supplicating weaklings trembling before an unmerciful
‘God’ who cares not whether we live or die. We are self-respecting, prideful people—we are Satanists!”
(p. 54)
xv. “Each
person must decide for himself what form of sexual activity best suits his
individual needs.” (p. 66)
xvi. “No
person or society has the right to set limitations on the sexual standards or
the frequency of sexual activity of another.” (p. 70)
xvii.
“Satanism encourages its followers to indulge in
their natural desires. Only by so
doing can you be a completely satisfied person with no frustrations which can
be harmful to yourself and others around you. Therefore, the most simplified description of the Satanic
belief is: INDULGENCE INSTEAD OF ABSTINENCE.” (p. 81)
xviii.
“Satanism has never needed a book of rules,
because vital natural forces have kept man ‘sinful’ and intent on preserving
himself and his feelings.” (p. 85)
xix. “If
your success or happiness disturbs a person—you owe him nothing! He is made to
be trampled under foot!” (p. 90)
As can be seen, Satanism articulates an extremely
individualistic and relativistic ethic.
There are no objective, enduring ethical standards. Ethical standards are continually
evolving with no fixed ethical stipulations. Indulgent selfish is the chief standard. Now after clearly declaring these
philosophical commitments Anton LaVey does something interesting—he articulates
specific ethical boundaries that, seemingly, all Satanists are to follow. Notice below how LaVey endorses ethical
standards that ought not to be transgressed.
i.
“Satanism represents a form of controlled
selfishness.” (p. 51)
ii.
“Satanism condones any type of sexual activity
which properly satisfies your individual desires—be it heterosexual,
homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual, if you choose. Satanism also sanctions any fetish or deviation which will enhance
your sex-life, so long as it involves no one who does not wish to be involved.”
(p. 67)
iii.
“Satanism encourage any form of sexual
expression you may desire, so long as it
hurts no one else.” (p. 69)
iv.
“Aside from the foregoing exception, the
Satanist would not intentionally hurt others by violating their sexual
rights. If you attempt to impose
your sexual desires upon others who do not welcome your advances, you are
infringing upon their sexual
freedom. Therefore, Satanism does not advocate rape, child molesting,
sexual defilement of animals, or any other form of sexual activity which
entails the participation of those who are unwilling or whose innocence or
naïveté would allow them to be intimidated or misguided into doing something
against their wishes.” (p. 70)
v.
“The reverse is also true; one person may have
great sexual prowess, but it is unjust for him to belittle another whose sexual
capacity may not equal his own, and inconsiderate for him to impose himself
upon the other person, i.e., the man who has a voracious sexual appetite, but
whose wife’s sexual needs do not match his own.” (p. 70)
vi.
“Under no circumstances would a Satanist
sacrifice any animal or baby!” (p. 89)
vii.
“There are sound and logical reasons why the
Satanists could not perform such
sacrifices. Man, the animal, is
the godhead to the Satanist. The
purest form of carnal existence reposes in the bodies of animals and human
children who have not grown old enough to deny themselves their natural
desires. They can perceive things
that the average adult human can never hope to. Therefore, the Satanist holds these beings in a sacred
regard, knowing he can learn much from these natural magicians of the world.”
(p. 89)
Clearly LaVey is stipulating ethical boundaries that he is
universalizing. Where does this
moralizing come from? In light of
what he says elsewhere (as seen above) why does LaVey now draw these ethical
lines? There is a fundamental
inconsistency in LaVey’s thought here.
Remember, LaVey wrote:
No creed must be accepted upon
authority of a ‘divine’ nature.
Religions must be put to the question. No moral dogma must be taken for granted—no standard of
measurement deified. There is
nothing inherently sacred about moral codes. Like the wooden idols of long ago, they are the work of
human hands, and what man has made, man can destroy![14]
This will, to be rationally consistent, apply also to the
moral dogma that LaVey espouses.
If LaVey can create this moral code (e.g., no rape or child molesting)
then this moral code can be destroyed.
There is nothing within Satanism which would provides the philosophical
justification against someone breaking the moral code of LaVey. Thus, Satanism is internally contradictory
as a philosophical system.
Another angle from which to consider this is: What would a
Satanist say in response to the Marquis de Sade’s philosophy which endorsed
pleasure at the expense of others?
What consistent philosophical principle keeps Satanism from devolving
into Sadism? Historian Richard
Weikart describes Sade’s philosophy in the following manner:
Sade believed that the universe is
amoral and cruel, so when humans are brutal to each other, they are actually
acting in harmony with the cosmic order (or to be more consistent with Sade, I
should say, ‘cosmic disorder’).
Furthermore, Sade recognized that if materialism is true and the
universe is amoral, then there is no reason for an individual to sacrifice his
own pleasure for the good of anyone else.
Indeed, if an individual gains pleasure through the suffering of
another—either directly or indirectly—then Sade saw no problem with it. He stated, ‘the action which serves me
by hurting another is perfectly indifferent to nature,’ and since in his view nature
is all that exists, hurting others is permissible.[15]
Sade dismissed any notion of love
and concern for other people, because pleasure was the only value worth
pursuing. Morality was
meaningless, in Sade’s view, and he believed that ‘For those who found rape and
murder amusing, rape and murder were fully legitimate activities.’[16]
How could a Satanist rationally refute Sade’s
philosophy? It seems that Sade was
more consistent with his metaphysical and ethical commitments than LaVey was.
Paul Copan speaks to this kind of inconsistency when he writes:
If we are simply animals, why
refrain from raping or practicing infanticide when this is ‘natural’ or
‘widespread’ in nature? It seems
that those who vehemently resist such practices are smuggling in metaphysical
capital from another worldview that clearly demarcates valuable, responsible
moral agents from environment-bound, instinct-guided animals.[17]
Anton LaVey is, thus, “smuggling in metaphysical capital
from another worldview.” In this
sense Satanism is parasitic on Christian theism.[18] It does not have the ethical resources
from within itself to justify the ethical boundaries it arbitrarily upholds.
[1]
James R. Lewis, “Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist ‘Tradition’” Marburg Journal of Religion 7 (2002),
1-16. Online: https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2002/articles/lewis2002.pdf
and “Who Serves Satan? A Demographic and Ideological Profile” Marburg Journal of Religion 6 (2001),
1-25. Online: http://archiv.ub.uni-marburg.de/mjr/pdf/2001/lewis2001.pdf. Lewis specifically uses the phrase
“LaVeyan Satanism” on page 16 of “Who Serves Satan?”
[2]
Diane Vera lists a brief taxonomy of Satanic types: LaVeyan, Temple of Set,
pantheistic/panentheistic, polytheistic, and gnostic—“The Varieties of Theistic
(‘Traditional’) Satanism,” online: http://theisticsatanism.com/varieties/index.html.
[5]
Part of my concern was for my evangelical readers. There is a tendency to conflate all sorts of “Satanism”
together which does not make for nuanced or focused critique. This is a criticism I have of the
evangelical Craig S. Hawkins “The Many Faces of Satanism” Forward [now Christian
Research Journal], Fall, 1986.
Online: http://www.gospeloutreach.net/fosatan.html.
[6]
James R. Lewis, “Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist ‘Tradition’” Marburg Journal of Religion 7 (2002),
1-16. Available online: https://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/2002/articles/lewis2002.pdf.
[8]
For a quick overview of Satan from a biblical perspective see Sam Storms “10
Things You Should Know About Satan” Sam
Storms: Enjoying God [blog] May 23, 2016. Online: http://www.samstorms.com/enjoying-god-blog/post/10-things-you-should-know-about-satan
[9]
John Smulo in his online work “Christ’s Advocate: An Incarnational Apologetic
to Satanism” covers the details of Warnke’s story and the debunking of it by
evangelical reporters Mike Hertenstein and Jon Trott in their book Selling Satan: The Tragic History of Mike
Warnke (Chicago, Ill.: Cornerstone Press, 1993). Smulo’s piece in available online: http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Christ_s_Advocate__An_Incarnational_Apologetic_to.pdf?paperid=1767501.
[17]
Paul Copan, “God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality,” in The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and
Daniel Dennett in Dialogue; ed. Robert Stewart (Fortress, 2008), 157. Online: http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/pdf/God-naturalism-morality.pdf.
[18]
One is reminded of H. Van Reissen remarks about Nietzsche’s philosophy—a
philosopher who has influenced Satanism: “While he parodied him and sought his
opposite, still Nietzsche was in fact nothing else than a parasite feeding on
the gospel. Brom has rightly
remarked the Zarathustra would be unthinkable without the Bible.” Quoted in Rousas J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the
Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Fairfax, Virginia: Thoburn Press, 1978),
329.
