Should We Not Say Anything Against Voodoo?

00:00

Should We Not Say Anything Against Voodoo?

March 27, 2025

Questions about how to respond to someone who thinks we shouldn’t say anything against Voodoo since it’s “just their culture” and arguments to refute a proponent of the African traditional religion as a means of worshiping the almighty God.

* When I expressed concern about a movie dealing with Voodoo magic, one of the students said that it’s “just their culture,” as if we shouldn’t say anything against voodoo since it’s a cultural practice. How should I have responded?

* What arguments would you present as a polemic to refute a proponent of the African traditional religion as a means of worshiping the almighty God?

Transcript

Welcome to the hashtag S-R-Ask podcast starring Greg Koukl, the one and only. With the star. That's true.

I knew you would hate that, I'm sorry. We don't use that language right now. No, no.

Alright, let's start with a question from Kirsten. Okay. I'm a youth leader.

A girl in my small group was talking about the movie, The Princess and the Frog, and I expressed concern about it dealing with voodoo magic. A different girl then said, but that's just some people's culture. It was as if we shouldn't say anything against voodoo magic since it was a quote cultural practice.

How should I have responded? Well, I'd want to draw a person out a little bit to have them cash out the nature of their objection. I think Kirsten, your instinct is probably correct. This is kind of a residual multiculturalism.

That's what they do. We do something different. Who are we to judge? Everybody's got their own cultural practice.

That is a type of relativism. It reminds me of when the British colonized India. In India, they had a practice.

The practice was called Seti. Seti was a funeral rite. When the husband died and they burned the husband's body on the funeral pyre, they would take the wife who was still alive and throw her around the pyre too.

They would burn the wife at the same time. That was their custom. When the British came in and outlawed that, people raised this issue.

They said, wait, we have a custom. This is what we do in our culture. The British magistrate said, we have a custom too.

Our custom is to prosecute people who do that or something to that effect. One can't just, in a certain sense, punt to cultural practice as a way of disallowing a moral assessment of the cultural practice. That's what the left wants to do.

This is what the cultural left wants to do who are morally relativistic. Every culture has its own thing. We don't mess with that.

It's so interesting, though, because it's self-refuting. These are the same people that maybe a generation ago were screaming about apartheid in South Africa. That was terrible.

Wait a minute. Who are you to judge their culture? That's their practice. They were complaining because this was obviously immoral.

They weren't consistently following that policy. They follow it when it's convenient to them, people characteristically. This is a difficulty with relativism.

All forms of relativism. People want others to be relativist regarding their own behavior. Essentially, don't judge me.

They don't want other people to be relativist towards them. In other words, they don't want other people to operate without any moral categories except for personal preference with regards to them. This is the liability of this view, and I think this is what's going on.

I would want to draw that person out with a lot of questions. Help me understand why is it that I shouldn't object to shamanism? Well, that's a cultural practice. You're saying no matter what any other culture does because it's part of their culture that legitimizes it? I'm getting clarification.

They say, yes, well, then I'm going to start thinking of counter examples. The most obvious one is the Third Reich. They had a cultural momentum with regards to the Jews and a whole bunch of other things too.

The fact that they took over Austria, took over Czechoslovakia, then invaded Poland and tried to the Ukraine and tried to take over Russia. That was all part of their ethic. It's a German word for living space, leaving something or other.

I don't know. The point is, okay, they had their cultural thing going on, and then this became the justification that they offered at the Nuremberg trials. They said, wait a minute, we're doing basically following orders we're doing what our culture said we should do.

There's all kinds of genuine counter examples to this. The point there being, we have a fairly clear understanding of what is morally sound and what isn't. And God helps us to refine that understanding.

And shamanism is evil. And so we ought to make whatever assessments we're making about stories like that with our confidence that shamanism that's practiced is evil. Now, there might be some other reasons why a story like that might not be so objectionable.

I mean, look at Tolkien and Lewis, et cetera, et cetera. Justification of stories like that is not kind of this cultural relativistic view that all cultures have their different things. We shouldn't pass judgment on them.

That has no place in a Christian's assessment of cultural practices. I don't really have anything to say about tactics necessarily. And I think what you've described there is helpful.

But what I want to point out is that this demonstrates a big problem I think people have today, especially maybe the younger you are. And that is the idea that religion is just a matter of preference. And morality.

And morality, but it's just, they don't have the sense that there is a reality, a spiritual reality that is the same for everyone. It's a matter of what you like, what's good for you, what helps you. So here, this might be revealed just a qualifier that is objectively the same for everybody, even though subjectively, they may think differently.

So it isn't the same in terms of their own convictions, but it is the neat reality is the way the world is structured. And so you live within that, even if you have false beliefs about reality. So I live in Los Angeles.

There are things that are true about Los Angeles, no matter what I think about it, no matter what you think about it, no matter what anyone thinks about it. We don't just get to make up our own ideas of how it works and who's in charge and what the rules are. Those things are all objectively outside of our own preferences.

So whatever you can do as a youth leader to help your students understand that this is the case about spiritual reality. This is the ground floor of what you have to teach them. Absolutely.

So this has revealed that they might not realize this. Now, it's easy for us not to realize that they don't realize it. It's very easy until you start asking questions and you realize they're not thinking about religion the same way I am.

Again, especially if you're older and they're younger, I think this has gotten worse over the years. You might be talking to them about all these things and what they're hearing is not what you're saying. You have to be very explicit about getting this across to them so that they understand.

Yeah, this is a foundational concept to the story of reality, why I chose that title. And I introduced this notion that in the book that there is this sense that everybody's kind of got their own thing and what religion is a spiritual fantasy, if I'm what you like. Instead of being a picture of reality, a characterization of the way the world actually is, which is where we get the world world view.

It's a view of the way the world is, you know, not the way my mind is or what my preferences happen to be. And the second thing I want to say about this is again, kind of an overall observation on this about discussing the movie with your students, which I think is great thing to do. A good thing to get across to them is the idea that whoever is creating this movie is creating a worldview that may or may not be true.

It may be it may be completely false. It may have false elements, whatever it is. Just because you're seeing it on the screen doesn't mean that is telling you the truth about everything.

It's easy to forget that, especially if you want to give yourself over to whatever story and you want to enjoy the story, you can forget that there's actually an author who has written this and made up this worldview and made certain things look good and certain things look bad that may or may not be good or bad. So as one thing you might want to start instilling in them is the idea that we need to evaluate what we're seeing. We need to look at the worldview of the movie.

We need to recognize what they're teaching and we need to know what is true and what isn't true. We can't just go along with whatever the story is and let it sway how we view reality because it's not reality. So you need to teach them to evaluate that worldview.

Now, this doesn't mean you can't enjoy the movie. In fact, I think this is the only way you can enjoy it because then you can enjoy it for what it is and say, yes, this is a cultural practice and this is their perspective, but this is not correct. But it's false.

And it's false. And there can be, this doesn't mean I think you should watch any and every movie depending on what you're tempted by or how you're swayed or how good you are at recognizing what is good and what is bad, then there are movies you shouldn't see. But I think you can see a movie like this and say, look how they're showing this is something good.

Well, mostly the booty was bad in there. So I'm not sure there's only one character that's doing anything good with magic, but you have to be able to evaluate that. And if you can do that, I don't think you have to separate yourself from every wrong idea.

In fact, it's a good idea to understand other people's worldview and where they're coming from. I can think of my daughter Eva, who is now 17, but when she was younger, she'd go over to a friend's house and watch these movies that I wouldn't necessarily approve of or would find problematic in terms of their ideas. And she would say, it's okay, Dad, there were no cuss words in it.

I said, I don't care about the cuss words. I mean, I do somewhat, but it's not my major concern. It's not the bad words.

It's the bad ideas. And I said, you don't know how to see the bad ideas. I do.

And therefore you can't, you can protect yourself in a certain sense regarding the cuss words. They say that and you think, oh, I shouldn't say that. But when it comes to bad ideas that you don't see as bad, now you can't protect your mind from that.

All right, Greg. So let's go to a question from Chisholm. And this kind of touches on relativism and religion also.

Okay. So here's the question. What logical and philosophical arguments would you present as a polemic to refute a proponent of the African traditional religion as a means of worship to the Almighty God? Well, I don't know a lot about this.

So I'm just going to deal. Let me just say first, so it's not clear to me. Maybe it's clear to you, but it's not clear to me if the question here is, they're using the African traditional religion to worship the true God.

They're using the methods to worship the true God, or that this African traditional religion is worshiping the true God. I'm not sure which is. Well, sure.

There's nothing wrong with, let's just say, okay, in some churches, Christians worship God and they raise their hands and they jump around and make a lot of noise. In other churches, they sit on their hands and they don't make out any noise. These are cultural forms of worshiping the true God.

And I mean, they identify distinctions or differences. Now, if it turns out you're talking about Africa and there are certain types of music instruments. They use ways of expressing themselves that are germane to that culture and they incorporate that in their worship of God.

I don't see a problem with that characteristically. So that might be what the question is. They're using their traditional forms to worship the true God.

Okay. That's one possibility. And again, I don't see any difficulty there.

The other possibility is that they are bringing in pagan concepts and they are labeling them as worship to the true God. All right. Now, this happened a lot with Christianity going to these other countries where they just imported the paganism into their Christianity and they would call their pagan gods by saint-like names.

But the substance was the same as the pagan religion but it had a veneer of Christian lingo on it. Well, that's just paganism. And that isn't worshiping the true God.

It's just worshiping. They're continuing in their pagan practices. All right.

Now, in the New Testament, this was not allowed. In fact, it was an emphasis where there were all of these pagan books and materials and whatever, maybe not books like we know books, but parchments, et cetera. And when these large group became Christian, they brought all this up and they burned it all.

Because they were not going to relate to God through the mechanisms of their ancient religion. This was different. This was not polytheistic in any sense.

This was Jesus's Lord. And consequently, there was no participation in that kind of thing. And so Jesus said in John 4 to the woman of the well that God has to be worshiped in spirit and in truth.

And what's interesting there is he's talking to a Samaritan woman and the Samaritans were kind of half freed, half Gentile, half Jews. And the Jews and Samaritans didn't characteristically get along together because they had a different place of worshiping. They weren't acknowledging the worship place in Israel in Jerusalem.

And they had their own thing and they had their own deal. We've got our own religion. Now, it turned out their own religion, though somewhat kin to the Jewish expression was not sound.

And when the woman at the well asked Jesus about this, he said salvation is from the Jews. You guys don't have it right. They have it right.

Okay? So he's making a contrast there. Now, he does say that time is coming when you will neither worship on this hill, mountain, in Samaria or in Jerusalem. But those who are worshiping God will worship in spirit and in truth.

So there is a change coming. But notice how Jesus is acknowledging spiritual standards. You can't just bring your own culture in and kind of create an amalgam of truth and kind of paganistic error.

That's error. You take a good food and you put a little poison in it, you still die. And this is a point that Jesus is making there.

And again, we're a little bit in the dark about the specific details here with this question. But if that's what's going on, if they're bringing in pagan elements and claiming that this is the true God there, worshiping, well, that's kind of what the Samaritans were doing. And Jesus corrected them in John chapter four.

Yes, there is one true God. But just because you're worshiping a God doesn't mean you're worshiping the true God. And that's what it comes down to.

Isn't it amazing how many people get that confused? Well, there's only one God, right? Okay, then the Jewish God, the Christian God, the Muslim God, the Buddhist God, etc. They're all the same God because there's only one God. What confusion is that? But people do this all the time.

Well, just think about how detailed God got when he gave the Jews the instructions for worshiping, and he developed their culture over such a long period of time. He had to give them very detailed descriptions of how they were to worship. And the reason why is because he was shaping their consciences and their moral reasoning and their understanding of who he was through these particular practices.

And he kept them very separate from all the other nations because if they were to bring in those other practices that they used to worship their gods, it would distort their understanding of who God is. Right, right. So we need to understand that when people have other practices for their gods, there is so much involved with that.

I don't even think we realize how much that's shaping their understanding of who God is. You know, there's a people wonder about some of the provisions of the law that seem weird, like don't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk. Well, that just shows up.

But what the heck is that all about? Well, a lot of these things don't mix these fabrics, okay, in a certain way. These are instructional. And some of it is prohibiting behaviors that were characteristic of pagan worship.

And he's saying, by the way, here, do this, this, this, all the precision that you just described. And then he said, and don't do this because this that I don't want you to do is what the pagans do. I do not want you becoming eclectic, syncretistic, mixing these things together, but to keep Yahweh worship pure.

And that goes to this point that we're talking about here. And it's not just for some silly reason. The reason is because he wants us to know him and false rituals that were developed to worship a different God will never point us towards the true God.

Now, I just thought of one other example. This comes in 1 Corinthians 10, where Paul's talking about how he's talking about communion and he says, he's talking about people sacrificing things to idols. And he says, what do I mean then that a thing sacrificed to idols is anything or that an idol is anything? No, there's only one God.

But I say that the things which the Gentiles sacrificed, they sacrificed to demons and not to God. That's great. So you can't participate in these other religions practices with them and think that you're worshiping the true God.

And again, this all goes back to the question of relativism and whether or not there's a spiritual reality because I'm sure there are people hearing this and they think it sounds bigoted. But I'm not saying I don't like those things or we're better than those people are. That's not what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is there is a real God and there's a reality and we should be seeking that true and good God because every other false God will be worse than the true God. By the way, let me speak to the bigoted issue here really quickly because this creates confusion. It turns out that the charge of bigotry is self-defeating.

Because what we have here are two competing views of the religion project. The Christian view, there's one God and worshiping him is described and defined in the scripture and not the others. And the other one is a competing view called pluralism.

All of these other religions are legitimate. Now, when we advance our view, people say, well, you're bigoted for believing that. Why aren't they bigoted for holding to their view then and saying, we're wrong.

They got it right. They understand how it works out. Their way is the only way.

Whatever that way is that they're defending. Why is that not bigoted? Okay. Well, it's not because tolerances are one way street.

But I'm just pointing this out that both parties in this discussion are making the same kind of claim. And if there is a objection like that, objects of bigotry level against one, it applies equally to the other for the exact same reasons. All right.

Now, they might think, well, ours is better because we're broader, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily true. They're saying their view is true and ours is false. So why is that not bigoted? I don't think it's bigoted, but I don't think our claim is bigoted.

And by the way, whether or not it's bigoted, is irrelevant. What's important is which view is true. And when somebody says, well, that's bigoted, they've changed the subject.

Now, instead of talking about the issue, they are talking about the Christian's character. And since this is bigoted and the Christian is bigoted, their view must be false, but that's fallacy. So as soon as someone says it's bigoted, what you can say is, oh, now I understand where the misunderstandings happening.

You think I'm saying, I like this and I don't like that. Or something. That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying this is true. Again, they're revealing their relativism when it comes to spiritual issues. They're saying there's no actual truth about religion.

Therefore, we should all be nice to people and be kind to them about their beliefs. And that's where you can come in and say, look, well, would I be bigoted if I said, you have to take Sepulveda to get to Manchester Avenue? Those are two streets where people don't listen. Near where Amy lives.

So if you missed that, don't worry about it. Would I be bigoted if I said that? Well, no. Okay.

I'm making the same kind of claim. Now, I could be wrong and you could think I'm wrong, but can you understand that this has nothing to do with bigotry? This has to do with I'm making a claim about what's true. So you can convince me that what I'm saying is not true, but just saying I'm bigoted, it doesn't even address what I'm saying.

You're changing the topic. And that's also something you could say if people say, well, you're bigoted. I say, why did you change the topic? What do you mean? Well, we were talking about this issue here, but religion, now we're talking about my personality.

Why did you do that? Why can't we just talk about the issue? I'll tell you why, because you're stupid. No, don't say that. That would be a counter example.

You're doing the same thing. Whether they're stupid or not doesn't tell you whether the view is correct. Just calling them a name.

So it's name calling is what it amounts to. Don't do it. But don't be taken in by it either.

Well, thank you so much for your question. Send us your question on X with the hashtag STR. Ask or just go to our website at str.org and look for our podcast page.

Find hashtag STR. Ask and you'll see a link there to send us your question. Just make sure it's short about the size of a tweet.

Two sentences, maybe try to keep it short. And we will consider it for the show. We look forward to hearing from you.

This is Amy Hall and Greg Coco for Stand to Reason.