This is Faith in Play #71: Good Witch, for October 2023.
The word “witch”, according to the dictionary, has connotations of evil magic, ugly appearance, and a nasty disposition. Yet in our usage we have lost this aspect of witches being evil and ugly. Indeed, if you attend enough game conventions you will meet girls and women who claim to be witches who seem very nice and not at all unattractive. I knew a girl four decades ago who did not want to be involved in Dungeons & Dragons™ because she had been, she said, a white witch–a person who believed she was doing good with her magic, but who realized that she needed Jesus, and left witchcraft behind.
I suspect that L. Frank Baum gave us the cultural basis for the concept of the good witch who was beautiful to look at, as his The Wizard of Oz introduced a Good Witch of the North who in the film version became the beautiful Glinda (who was the Good Witch of the South in the books), and so a generation grew up with the idea that some witches are good and beautiful. This notion was picked up in the television series Bewitched and other media, to the point that in her book series author J. K. Rowling was able to use Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry as a setting where both good and bad people are taught to use their innate talents and abilities as wizards and, of course, witches. “Witch” no longer has the negative connotations it once had.
Yet there is an aspect of our faith that abhors witches. How do we reconcile this? Three points come to mind.
The first is that language changes. The King James Version used the word “ghost” in many passages to render the word we today render as “spirit”, which is where we get the notion of the “Holy Ghost”. To modern children that can be confusing–a ghost is a spirit of a dead person, so the Holy Ghost which came after Jesus died must be His ghost, and it stayed around after He came back to life. Obviously that’s not what we mean by “Holy Ghost”, but it’s not because the translation was bad, but because the word which once referred to any kind of spirit changed meaning over time to refer to the departed spirit of a dead person. In the same way, the word “witch” no longer necessarily refers to wicked ugly women who work curses and potions and turn princes into frogs, but simply to women who use magic, possibly as an inborn ability, or possibly as part of a different religion.
The second point comes from that: there is a new religion in the world called Wicca which has effectively co-opted the term “witch” for its adherents. It does so to give the impression that it has ancient roots, although honest practitioners recognize that it was created in the early twentieth century and has little if any connection to witchcraft of the past. That does put these people in the same category as the witches of the Bible, though, because what God was against in ancient Israel was the practice of other religions. Witches then were people who worshipped other deities, and sought power from gods who were not god, and communicated with the spirits of the dead. God is opposed to His people seeking power or even information from spirits that are not Him or sent by Him.
However, that doesn’t mean that witches are wicked or evil in some way that is different from every other person who worships a god who is not our God, who fails to recognize the authority and victory of Jesus Christ. The world is full of unredeemed people who are as good, in moral, ethical, and practical terms, as most Christians. What distinguishes us is not so much our moral standards as our trust and love for God and each other. Wiccans have rules of morality and ethics which sound good, and many of them make for good neighbors and decent friends.
Still–and the third point–whatever their intentions, whatever their motivations, witches are people who want power. We talked about such Seekers three years ago. What matters here is that those who are seeking power are inevitably doing it for selfish reasons–even if they hope to use it to help others, it is so that others will recognize that they have value and can help them. In a sense this is strongly in contrast to spiritual gifts: the Holy Spirit gives gifts as He chooses to individuals who then use them to help others and give the glory to God; the white witch (or wizard) seeks to learn powers to use to help others so that they themselves will be glorified.
That in one sense is the essence of evil; in another sense, it’s a rather natural ordinary human sort of evil. It is often the selfishness that drives politicians, but also lawyers, doctors, professionals in many fields, athletes and artists, and even ministerial candidates. That someone’s religion makes them avowedly seekers of power only makes them more honest about it.
In Middle Earth, Tolkien’s wizards were metaphors for angelic beings. In most Christian fantasy, magic is a metaphor for spiritual power, whether divine or diabolical. The only problem with good witches in our games and stories is that they help promote the notion that it is good to seek power apart from God, and a well-written story can avoid that. The only problem with good witches in reality is that they promote beliefs contrary to Christian faith, which puts them in the same category as Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists, Hindus, Agnostic Naturalists, and Atheists: potentially good people who are lost and leading others astray, who need salvation.
So don’t be too uncomfortable with good witches used as characters in games and stories; these can be very useful metaphors for spiritual power in the world. Equally, don’t be too uncomfortable with people you meet who adhere to witchcraft as their religion. They are not more lost or more dangerous than the vast masses of other lost people in need of Jesus out there.
Excellent perspective on characters power seeking both in fantasy games and in the real world. I like the value u mention that some games get us to think about the unseen world…..as Paul says “we see what cannot be seen” [roughly put] and so this awareness has value. As long as we do not cling to false gods and know that all real power is from Jesus.
Amen, and thanks for commenting. It always encourages me to read that something I wrote benefited someone.
–M. J. Young
//who need salvation//
Your religion is not a virtue; no one ‘needs’ your religion. The act of imagining people are some faulty and in need of something only YOU can provide is a kind of in group versus out group psychological ‘enemy image’ projection. You imagine ills about people outside of your immediate peer group, which is defined by an insular ethnic superstitious belief system. You’re so arrogant, you can’t even consider the possibility that any version of Christianity can exist outside of your own, in fact you talk about other groups and issues as if they are intrinsically not-Christian or better yet.. anti-Christian.
Most Christians reject your Christianity.
You’re not a god. You don’t get to speak as if you are a god, which that is exactly what you’re doing.
No, you’re not telling us the ‘words of jesus’ you’re telling us an extremely narrow personal subjective interpretation that’s derived from a relativistic cultural belief that only temporarily exists in the present. Most Christians reject your belief, both in the present and past, with Christianity ( just like every other religion ) weaving in and out of different ideologies and different interpretations.. with very little cohesion that can’t be enforced at the end of a sword or a gun.
Chad, I am not a god–but I am a Mensa-level theology scholar specializing in New Testament. I’m aware of the broad differences among Christians; our group of which I have been chaplain almost from the beginning (a quarter century now) has been comprised of persons from a wide range of denominations including Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and most branches of Protestantism.
I think our primary conflict is in misunderstanding what “faith” is. We believe that it is actually true that Jesus of Nazareth was in some sense the Son of God, that He literally lived and died, executed by the government, and that He returned to life and ascended into heaven. But when I say that “we believe” this, I mean that we take them to be facts–much as we believe George Washington was the first President of the United States, or the Earth revolves around the Sun at a distance of roughly eight light minutes.
Neo-orthodox scholar John Bright in his book Authority of the Old Testament said that to be a Christian is to believe that the Bible is true, and that the degree that you believe it is the same degree to which you are a Christian. There are certainly people who want to call themselves Christians who do not believe the Bible, and I can’t tell them they can’t use the label–but I think that they have co-opted a title which historically means something different. If you believe the Bible is true, you are Christian; if you are Christian, you believe the Bible is true.
It also intrinsically means that you believe that people who do not believe the Bible to be true, who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of the Creator and that He returned to life after being executed and ascended into heaven, are wrong–much as people who believed the earth to be flat were wrong, and people who believed the sun traveled around the earth were wrong. That’s not denigrating them in any way; it’s simply recognizing that if these things are true, anything that contradicts them must be false.
I think you have a very poor understanding of Christianity, which actually has been remarkably consistent through history. My beliefs are very similar to those of Tertulian, Augustine, Luther, Wesley, and Billy Graham. Not one of us believes we have everything absolutely right, and indeed this is the reason I continue to study–but also to teach and share what I have already learned.
I have written several books http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/ you might find helpful, but I suspect that you are less interested in exploring the subject than I, so I will leave this here.
//had, I am not a god–but I am a Men//
Your entire theological belief is subjective.
Since you’re dictating ‘truth’ at others, you are in effect pretending to be a god or operating as if you know the mind and intent of a god. You can’ t be bothered to argue how it’s true, anymore than any other theological believer can, and you have no choice but to presuppose it is true. You have to qualify that with ‘faith’ to account for knowledge you don’t actually have.
Even if I thought a god existed, I wouldn’t dare claim to be authoritative in what it ‘intends’ or ‘thinks’ without qualifications that that is nothing more than mere speculation. It’s fascinating to me that you don’t recognize the fault in your own myopic reasoning. Which I think the use of other absolute polemics in your response speaks to the inability to humble yourself.
“You can’ t be bothered to argue how it’s true, anymore than any other theological believer can, and you have no choice but to presuppose it is true.”
Au contraire, mon ami, I have indeed “bothered to argue how it’s true” in some detail in my book http://www.mjyoung.net/publish/believe.html Why I Believe. You probably don’t care because you’ve made up your mind and don’t want to be confused by the evidence.
//a Mensa-level theology scholar specializing in New Testament. I//
Don’t care.
Every theologian, including other Christian theologians, can claim to be a theologian or educated in theology. Unless you have general divinity studies at a university, you’re going to a seminary which is aligned to a specific theological version of belief as well as hermeneutics centered around that version of belief. If you come from an Evangelical believing community
I don’t really care about Mensa either; arguments from authority fallacies are meaningless. Labels are meaningless. I find it far more concerning that so much weight is placed on IQ, when IQ is a well known nebulous concept in scientific research.
//We believe that it is actually true that Jesus of Nazareth was in some sense the Son of God, that He litera//
Don’t care.
The general ‘bullet points’ of Christianity are not in conflict here. The issue is that you’re opining that other Christians have a different SOTERIOLOGICAL interpretation. Which is what I pointed out.. and which you didn’t address. As I pointed out, only a small number of Christians actually have a kind of universalistic interpretation of their own theology. Most branches of Christian theology maintain that only their version of Christianity is true and all others are intrinsically false.
//e that the Bible is true, and that the degree that you believe it is the same degree to which you are a Chris//
These are fantastic special pleading fallacies.
Most Protestant Christian denominations claim to both be reading the bible, the bible is true, and the bible is inerrant. Yet, they can and do have wildly differing beliefs and interpretations.. BECAUSE theological interpretation is intrinsically subjective. Just saying the ‘bible is true’ is irrelevant.
//u believe that people who do not believe the Bible to be true, //
This is a polemic; you’re diving all peoples into those who believe the bible is true versus those who don’t. You do this without any real explanation, which just.. begs the question.
I’m a militant atheist, I love studying religious documents, I can say the bible is ‘true’. However, you’re conflating a personal subjective theology with ‘truth’. A book, any book, need not be 100% true or 100% false. Again, you’re operating from really silly polemics.
// of Christianity, which actually has been remarkably consistent through histor//
There are not 45k+ denominations of Christianity spread amongst 12+ branches of Christian theology because either the bible or theology or the history of the development of are ‘consistent’. They are overwhelmingly inconsistent, demographics of Christianity are largely driven by geographical borders, socioeconomic borders, as well as demographics related to age and politics and even ethnicity.
//writt//
Don’t care.
What can you argue right now?
// If you come from an Evangelical believing community//
Forgot to finish this.
If you come from an Evangelical community you most likely were sponsored by your church to enter a seminary program. You probably began meeting with pastors in your church, with other youth pastors, engaged in rote memorization and rote recall ( which you call ‘study’ ). In reality you’re just memorizing lists of bullet point style ‘beliefs’, that you then regurgitate upon request.
When you get to the seminary, assuming you’re lucky that seminary isn’t a metal building that barely has less than a dozen students, you may sit around being clumsily taught how to read a little Greek. You may also have some education in oratory presentation, public speaking, etc. You also most likely have to sign or agree to a statement of faith which is just a presentation of that version of Christian theology that particular seminary teaches.
For what it’s worth, that’s not my background. I grew up in churches of several Protestant denominations and attended others, obtained my first undergraduate degree from a Lutheran Bible college and my second from a Evangelical college whose faculty was drawn from denominations as wide ranging as Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Pentecostal. My graduate degree is in law, and I have studied independently and taught Biblical studies both in classes at a small Christian college and in online courses.
Be careful what you assume. One of the lessons I was taught at that college was to be sure you examine your own presuppositions before you draw conclusions.