1

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 LaVeysometimes 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 Aquinos The Temple of Set and Lord Egans (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

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.unimarburg.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 gnosticThe Varieties of Theistic
(Traditional) Satanism, online: http://theisticsatanism.com/varieties/index.html.

2
You mention that no one before LaVey had codified Satanism. There were,
however, predecessors to LaVeys brand of Satanism. Consider the example of
Herbert Arthur Sloanes 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, LaVeys 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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Endor_Coven.

4
https://encyclopediasatanica.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/our-lady-of-endorcoven-memo-1968-herbert-sloane.pdf.
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.
7
Lewis, Diabolical Authority: Anton LaVey, The Satanic Bible and the Satanist
Tradition, 10.

3
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 1980s and early 90s evangelicals were
overly influenced by Mike Warnkes 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 Warnkes claims were debunked by evangelical
reporters as they investigated the time-line of Warnkes life demonstrating that
his claims could not be true. John Smulo also highlights the fact that Warnkes
description of Satanism does not match the LaVeyan version. In Smulos 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 Warnkes
description.10
Evangelicals failure to engage with the primary source of SatanismThe Satanic
Bibleled them to drink from faulty informational sources such as Warnke.
Philosophical Tensions in the Satanic Worldview

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-thingsyou-should-know-about-satan
9
John Smulo in his online work Christs Advocate: An Incarnational Apologetic
to Satanism covers the details of Warnkes 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).
Smulos piece in available online:
http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Christ_s_Advocate__An_Incarnational_Apolog
etic_to.pdf?paperid=1767501.
10

Smulo, Christs Advocate: An Incarnational Apologetic to Satanism, 14.

4
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 grantedno 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)

11
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible (New York: Avon Books, 1969) with
introduction by Magus Peter Gilmore (copyright 2005), n.p.
12
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible (New York: Avon Books, 1969) with
introduction by Magus Peter Gilmore (copyright 2005), n.p.
13
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible (New York: Avon Books, 1969) with
introduction by Magus Peter Gilmore (copyright 2005), n.p.

5
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 indulgencedeath, the great abstinence.
Therefore, make the most of lifeHERE 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 terrorizedCursed 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 peoplewe are Satanists! (p. 54)

6
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 personyou 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 interestinghe 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 desiresbe 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

7
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 navet 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 wifes 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 LaVeys 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.

14
Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible (New York: Avon Books, 1969) with
introduction by Magus Peter Gilmore (copyright 2005), 31.

8
Another angle from which to consider this is: What would a Satanist say in
response to the Marquis de Sades philosophy which endorsed pleasure at the
expense of others? What consistent philosophical principle keeps Satanism from
devolving into Sadism? Historian Richard Weikart describes Sades 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 anothereither directly or indirectlythen
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
Sades 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 Sades 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
15
Richard Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life (Washington,
DC: Regnery Faith, 2016), 161.
16

Weikart, The Death of Humanity and the Case for Life, 263.

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 Nietzsches philosophy
a philosopher who has influenced Satanism: While he parodied him and sought

9
have the ethical resources from within itself to justify the ethical boundaries it
arbitrarily upholds.

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.