Thursday, April 2, 2020

The Difficulty of Distinguishing Between "Religion" and "Magic"


One of the problems in accusations that Joseph Smith and his family were engaged in “magic” is the failure of critics (e.g., D. Michael Quinn) from providing a meaningful distinction between “magic” and “religion.” Often it boils down to “what I do is religion; what you do is magic.” On this, see John Gee's review of Early Mormonism and the Magic World View (rev ed; 1998):


In the following, one Evangelical, in an attempt to distinguish between “magic” and “religion” ends up arguing that the concept of ex opere operato is “magic”:

Answering that question is admittedly complicated by the fact that there is no consensus among scholars at to the definition of magic. The difficulty is compounded if one seeks a definition that might apply to diverse cultures and eras, as can be seen, for example, from the articles on primitive, Gaeco-Roman, European, Islamic, and Asian magic in The Encyclopedia of Religion (Mircea Eliade, ed., The Encyclopedia of Religion [New York: Macmillan, 1987], 9:81-115) . . . in biblical religion God has the freedom to deny or to approve a request however well or poorly presented, in magic the desired result comes automatically  as long as the proper procedure is carried out to the letter; failure is always due to some mistake or imperfection in the process used by the practitioner (cf. Cornelis Van Dam, The Urim and Thummim: A Means of Revelation in Israel [Winnona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997], 122-25). Thus, magic is a legitimate category or term even if it is difficult to articulate a perfectly precise definition. (Robert M. Bowman Jr., Jesus’ Resurrection and Joseph’s Visions: Examining the Foundations of Christianity and Mormonism [Tampa, Fla.: DeWard Publishing Company, 2020], 177, 178)

Such is informed, at least in part, by the author’s (false) Calvinistic theology. Furthermore, he would have to argue that the sacramental theology of Roman Catholicism and other groups to be “magic,” as much of Catholic sacramental theology is based on the concept of ex opere operato and the very loose concept of “doing what the Church intends” to affect the sacrament (e.g., the Mass). Such would also apply to various Protestants who believe in baptismal regeneration and other aspects of a higher sacramental theology than Bowman's theology.

If he wishes to be consistent, I await Bowman to announce that he thinks Roman Catholicism is based on “magic,” a group that, notwithstanding his theological differences with, he considers to be “Christian”  in a narrow understanding (e.g., p. 11), not broad understanding, of the term, according to his book.

Interestingly, John Calvin, notwithstanding his views on the sacrament, believed the devil could administer a valid baptism as long as it was done during the correct formula (wording), a position he stated a few times during his lifetime. For example, in his commentary to Amos 5:25 (composed around 1557), he wrote:


Now then we see that the Prophets speak in various ways of Israel: when they regard the people, they say, that they were perfidious, that they were apostates, who had immediately from the beginning departed from the true and legitimate worship of God: but when they commend the grace of God, they say, that the true worship of God shone among them, that though the whole multitude had become perverted, yet the Lord approved of what he had commanded. So it is with Baptism; it is a sacred and immutable testimony of the grace of God, though it were administered by the devil, though all who may partake of it were ungodly and polluted as to their own persons. Baptism ever retains its own character, and is never contaminated by the vices of men. The same must be said of sacrifices.

Something similar appears in his comments to John 4:2 (written around 1553):

Though Jesus himself baptized not. He gives the designation of Christ’s Baptism to that which he conferred by the hands of other, in order to inform us that Baptism ought not to be estimated by the person of the minister, but that its power depends entirely on its Author, in whose name, and by whose authority, it is conferred. Hence we derive a remarkable consolation, when we know that our baptism has no less efficacy to wash and renew us, than if it had been given by the hand of the Son of God. Nor can it be doubted that, so long as he lived in the world, he abstained from the outward administration of the sign, for the express purpose of testifying to all ages, that Baptism loses nothing of its value when it is administered by a mortal man. In short, not only does Christ baptize inwardly by his Spirit, but the very symbol which we receive from a mortal man ought to be viewed by us in the same light as if Christ himself displayed his hand from heaven, and stretched it out to us. Now if the Baptism administered by a man is Christ’s Baptism, it will not cease to be Christ’s Baptism whoever be the minister. And this is sufficient for refuting the Anabaptists, who maintain that, when the minister is a wicked man, the baptism is also vitiated, and, by means of this absurdity, disturb the Church; as Augustine has very properly employed the same argument against the Donatists.

I wonder if Bowman will accuse Calvin of advocating “magic”?

On the topic of the Mass, be sure to see my articles addressing the biblical and patristic texts said to support the Mass being a propitiatory sacrifice and Transubstantiation:

Responses to Robert Sungenis, Not By Bread Alone (2000/2009)