The Unfathomable Darkness of the Modern “Reformed”

Just before Halloween in 2026 I had a Facebook conversation with one of our burgeoning number of worldling “Reformed” (un), in which horror fiction was being advocated as biblical by a relatively well-known worldling “Theonomist” advocate, Dan Brannan. As an aid to the sale of this degeneracy was the expected good-witch/bad-witch thing. There is good satanic fiction to be embraced, and of course that very bad satanic fiction to be avoided. So we are told. Think “Wizard of Oz” —good-witch, bad-witch. I’m old enough to remember Harry Potter being eviscerated by any and every evangelical except one lone voice, and then two, and then a dozen, and so on. Now it’s really hip. So hip, that one will find himself eviscerated if he doesn’t think Harry Potter is wonderful fiction. It’s the next logical step after LOTR. Such examples, or others like them, are destitute of any virtue whatever, but represent sorcerers and warlocks as the heroes of the story-line, and are allegorical of precisely nothing, other than a general “good vs. evil” paradigm where the good is witchcraft and the bad is witchcraft. It’s kind of like the Democrat and Republican parties. Such a perspective is constantly touted as being the manifest ethical and moral equivalent of Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress. Sorcerers and warlocks are the heroes  —same thing as Jesus being the hero, and in a pure allegory in which none of the imagery was gratuitous demonism, but figuring great Christian truths. Same thing, right? Looks the same to you, right? Jesus as hero vs. Warlock as hero? Who would not see the parallel? Any sane Christian not given over to a reprobate mind.

To this peculiar modern blindness I made the following reply:

“The modern pseudo-Reformed obsession with perverse entertainment, and its commitment to its defense paralleling any jealousy for the gospel, is about as Reformed as the mass. But nothing will assuage this iron clutch upon vice. Except of course final judgment.”

And that set things off.

So as such persons love to pretend to be from the Reformed tradition, I provided many witnesses from those these ostensibly respect, vainly imagining that English was not a second language. However, after providing the following citations I was assured that I was woefully deceived to imagine that such Reformed authors reproved or forbade horror novels, & etc. I post these references here just to show how psychotic and delusional the commitment to worldling religion has become in that church that was once equaled by none for its standards of personal holiness. The quotes provided:

Samuel Willard (1640–1707)

Willard, a influential Boston pastor and vice-president of Harvard, preached extensively on how light entertainment around demonic or magical themes breaks down spiritual defenses. In his work A Complete Body of Divinity, he wrote:

“The mind of man is like a mill; what you pour into it, it will grind. If you pour in holy truths, it grinds out holy affections. But if you pour in foolish, light, and dark fictions—tales of magic, witches, and demonic power—it will grind out nothing but vanity, dark thoughts, and a secret liking for things that God hath forbidden.”

John Owen (1616–1683) — Leading Puritan Theologian & Vice-Chancellor of Oxford

In A Treatise of the Dominion of Sin and Grace, Owen explained how reading light or sensational fictions allows sin to rule over the imagination before it ever manifests in outward actions:

“Sin may exercise its rule in the mind, fancy, and imagination… The first way whereby sin coins its motions into acts is by the imagination. When men fill their minds with foolish fictions, ungodly fables, or corrupt stories, they give Satan the steering of their thoughts. Though no outward crime be committed, the soul is secretly polluted and made unfit for communion with God.”

In The Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded, Owen added:

“Vain imaginations, once raised by foolish or dark books, are like dust in a room; though the storm pass, the dust settles upon everything in the soul.”

Philip Doddridge (1702–1751) — 18th-Century Independent Calvinist Pastor

In his renowned work The Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul (1745), Doddridge dedicated sections to advising young people on what they should read, directly warning against novels and “dark” or romanticized tales:

“Beware of those books which serve only to amuse the imagination while they starve the soul… Romances, plays, and foolish fables of marvels and dark wonders are the ruin of thousands. They give a false and unnatural representation of life, make real duties seem dull and insipid, and insensibly prepare the mind for the insinuations of the Tempter.”

Matthew Henry (1662–1714) — Nonconformist Calvinist Commentator

Commenting on 1 Timothy 4:7 (“Refuse profane and old wives’ fables”):

“Frivolous tales, dark superstitions, and foolish stories of ghosts and wonders are unfit for a Christian’s ear, much more his library. They silly the mind and take off the edge of spiritual desire.”

Increase Mather (1639–1723) Early American Puritan

In An Essay for the Recording of Illustrious Providences (1684) (often called Remarkable Providences), Increase Mather (Cotton Mather’s father and President of Harvard) argued against popular tales, chapbooks, and street literature featuring wizards, ghouls, and specters:

“To read or tell foolish, scary stories of specters, goblins, and dark enchantments serves only to corrupt the imagination… The Devil delights to be talked of and read about in foolish fables; for by them he either frightens men into slavish, superstitious fear, or else lulls them into a scoffing, profane mind where they treat the spiritual world as a mere game.”

William Perkins (1558–1602)

In A Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft, Perkins—one of the foundational theologians of Puritanism—addressed the subtle ways people engage with witchcraft without becoming practicing witches. He specifically condemned curiosity about the dark arts through literature, fables, and fortune-telling guides:

“It is a sin not only to practice witchcraft, but to maintain a curious and delighting itch after the knowledge of it… To read, retain, or delight in books, charms, or stories of magical arts is an unlawful curiosity. It is to drink of the Devil’s cup in secret while professing to be a servant of Christ.”

Perkins argued that reading about magical feats or demonic pacts for entertainment violates the First and Second Commandments because it treats the dark, forbidden world as a source of pleasure or amusement rather than an abomination.

Cotton Mather (1663–1728)

Mather—who wrote extensively during the Salem crisis—was acutely concerned about how curiosity about witchcraft spread through books and tales, especially among young people. In Memorable Providences (1689) and Wonders of the Invisible World (1693), he noted that reading “foolish” or “wretched” books on magic served as the precursor to spiritual affliction:

“There are books of sorcery, play-books, and foolish fables which serve as the Devil’s library… When young persons feed their minds upon stories of magic, foolish divinations, and spectral wonders, they do but tempt the Devil to tempt them. They make themselves a fit dwelling for unclean spirits by painting their imaginations with his imagery.”

Richard Baxter (1615–1691)

Baxter explicitly addressed those who thought reading about magic, sorcery, or witches in stories was harmless fun or merely entertaining. In A Christian Directory (1673), he treats reading about “witchcraft, sorcery, and foolish wonders” in light books as a psychological trap set by Satan:

“Beware of reading foolish tales of witches, hobgoblins, wizards, and apparitions… These do fill the mind with vain, dark, and superstitious imaginations, and leave a secret poison in the fancy. Though you think you only read them for delight, they insensibly unhinge the heart from God and dispose it to Satanic delusions.”

He further adds regarding “harmless” interest in supernatural fictions:

“Satan enters the heart oftenest through the window of a corrupted imagination. He that reads books of magic, strange wonders, and dark fables for pleasure is taking fuel to the devil’s fire.”

There is another citation that I omitted, and presented as my own words (in modernized form) to see if he would cavil at it, not realizing it was one of those he needed to pretend he agreed with. He didn’t take the bait. That was a quote from Reformed English clergyman William Romaine, (1714–1795).

William Romaine

“What a perversion of the intellect, which God gave for the contemplation of His eternal truth, to spend precious days and nights poring over the inventions of men—tales of witches, enchantments, and imaginary heroes. These things are calculated to feed the corrupt passions of the old man, to make the spiritual life appear dull, and to substitute a false, emotional wonder for the true fear of God.”

— Discourses on the Walk of Faith

Context: Romaine explicitly flagged tales involving witchcraft, enchantment, and human invention as antithetical to spiritual maturity, arguing they breed a counterfeit sense of wonder that competes with the majesty of God.

To this rendering of actual Reformed opinion I was given the following reply from Mr. Brannan:

“All great quotes. But I’m afraid you understand them no better than you understand my expressed position. Or, for that matter, your own. I don’t want to berate you, Chuck. I’d rather encourage you to slow down and think about the positions you advocate before you wind up blasting your own feet off.”

And such citations from the actual-Reformed plainly don’t reprove witchy novels, right? It was obvious they weren’t doing that, right? The person who thinks these actually Reformed citations reprove witchy novels plainly doesn’t understand anything about this subject, right? With the growing number of blind worldlings proliferating in Christendom, maybe not. But I would hope that some can still understand English, be their prejudices what they may.

To this unintelligible response to such concursus of Reformed opinion, I made the following reply: “All your tinsel adherence to Reformed principle and theology is a pious fraud. You have not their Spirit, nor God’s, or such things would disgust you rather than engage your jealousy to defend.”

This immoral contagion has leached from the Doug Wilsons of the world down into the counsels of Reformed thought, until that church which was once the holiest of all, resembles the historical church it masquerades as being heirs to about as much as the Romish church resembles the apostles. Another Reformation is long overdue.

Charles Church