Further Reflections On Drugs D FURTHER REFLECTIONS ON DRUGS, DEMONS AND DELUSIONS Publisher Jack Chick Responds to Personal Freedom Outreach’s Reseach
by M. Kurt Goedelman with G. Richard Fisher and Paul R. Blizard
Personal Freedom Outreach has received much response to our article on Dr. Rebecca Brown and Elaine Moses, a self-proclaimed former witch, two women featured in recent Jack Chick Publications. (See The Quarterly Journal, Oct.-Dec., 1989, “Drugs, Demons & Delusions; The ‘Amazing’ Saga of Rebecca and Elaine,” pp. 1,8-15.)
Two books, He Came To Set the Captives Free and Prepare For War, along with two cassette tapes, Closet Witches 1 and 2, purport to tell the two women’s battle against demonic forces. Their story tells how Rebecca Brown, an Indiana physician, encounters Elaine Moses, a former witch (who also claims to have been a bride of Satan) and recent convert to Christianity. The two women go on to claim that they teamed up to wreak havoc on what they call the second-largest assembly of occultists in the nation before being driven out of the state by these same dark forces.
PFO research turned up a different story. The details are too extensive to list here, but two points will be repeated. First, Dr. Rebecca Brown (also known as Ruth Bailey) had her medical license revoked because of “gross negligence in the practice of medicine. Second, PFO research found that investigations by the police, federal agencies, and medical authorities, not an occult conspiracy, caused Brown and Moses to flee Indiana.
All the written responses to the article were positive, except two. Both these letters included a similar two-page reply from Jack Chick himself.
This article aims to respond to Chick’s criticisms. Familiarity with the original article is probably essential to understand this response. Therefore we encourage the reader to review the initial finding presented in the October-December 1989 issue of The Quarterly Journal.
Chick contests several findings in the PFO article. But more telling is the number of PFO findings his response ignores. One can only assume that Chick is not challenging those. Nevertheless, the PFO staff feels compelled to answer those criticisms Chick did level at the article.
Chick’s first question was why PFO “did not include any of the material submitted to the Medical Licensure [sic] Board in Brown’s defense?” A key document concerning her defense which contains her deposition was mentioned in the PFO article on page 13. (“Answers Of Ruth Bailey To Request For Admissions”) The article did not cite it in detail because Brown responded to the Medical Licensing Board’s inquiries with either the word “Admit” or “Deny.” These admissions or denials did little for her defense.
Had those responses been included, they would have damaged Brown’s credibility even more. For example, the “Request For Admissions” reveals that Brown denied that she believed that Edna Moses [Elaine Moses] “is, or has been possessed by demons or evil spirits” and further denied that she and Edna are “spiritual sisters.” These denials contradict the claims made in Brown’s books. Either Brown lied to the Medical Licensing Board or is lying to those who read her books.
Chick’s reply also said he has “seen all of those documents” (i.e., those cited in our article) and that they “included a complete physical exam and blood screen to prove that she [Brown] was NOT on drugs of any sort.” While the blood screen did indicate Brown was not on drugs of any sort, the complete testimony must be analyzed. Legal records indicate that before the drug scan, Brown went to Florida for a week and the doctor who performed the scan stated “that if she was clean for 48 hours, the type of drugs some feel she is on, such as Demerol, would not show up.” Testimony of eyewitnesses at the final hearing led the Indiana Medical Licensing Board to state: “That Respondent [Brown] has been witnessed routinely receiving non-therapeutic doses of at least 3 ccs of Demerol on an hourly basis by injecting herself in the backs of her hands, the inside of her thighs, or wherever she could locate a suitable vein.”
Further cited by Chick is a document containing “A complete psychiatric evaluation which stated that she was NOT unbalanced mentally in any way.” The document, to which Chick refers, probably is a letter from Dr. Larry M. Davis of The Davis Psychiatric Clinic in Indianapolis. Dr. Davis’ findings are exactly as stated by Chick. However, a review of the all the evidence will bear out the article.
A later evaluation and report from Indiana University’s Department of Psychiatry demonstrates Chick’s citation of the initial Davis report to be a conclusion based upon incomplete testimony. The latter account reported, “Dr. Davis shared with me his original report suggesting she [Brown] was not psychiatrically disturbed, but subsequent information about her religious preoccupations and fears of persecution had made him change his mind, and that he now felt she was psychiatrically disturbed.”
Further, this Indiana University Department of Psychiatry disclosure indicated that even on the basis of a “major disadvantage” of having no “information about the allegations which had brought her before the Medical Licensing Board,” the Indiana University personnel conducting the interview with Dr. Bailey concluded, “Her beliefs may represent a form of paranoid psychosis, may be a reflection of a brain disease, or may just indicate deeply held eccentric views of religion which she shares with others in her church.” (Board Exhibit #1 – Letter to the Medical Licensing Board Administrator from the Indiana University Department of Psychiatry, September 17, 1984)
Chick also contends “The psychiatrist’s report that made it into the final hearing never even evaluated Rebecca!” That statement is false. The Indiana University Department of Psychiatry’s report was submitted and mark as “Board Exhibit #1, 9/20/84” The report did “evaluate Rebecca” and in conclusion “strongly urge[d] that every attempt be made to persuade Dr. Bailey [Brown] to undergo a comprehensive physical, neurological and psychiatric examination in the very near future, preferably on an inpatient basis.”
Chick’s next objection is that PFO “neglected the little fact that the main accusation at the first hearing was that Rebecca had killed Elaine. Elaine appeared with Rebecca at that meeting and testified that she is alive.” The “main accusation” made against Brown was not that she killed Moses, but was an investigation into “possible adult neglect” or abuse and “making false prescription.” While Moses was admitted into St. Vincent’s Hospital (in Indianapolis) on October 11, 1983, in a near-death state, Brown never was charged with murder or manslaughter. The detective who spearheaded the investigation of Dr. Bailey, Samuel E. Hanna, told PFO that no murder or manslaughter charge ever was filed against Brown.
Chick next states “Rebecca also had copies of hospital records to prove that Moses was under the care of another doctor.” The PFO article never challenged this. Moreover, this statement adds little to Brown’s testimony. Citing the initial “Case-Complaint Report” by Officer Hanna, “Dr. Phil Goshert [stated] that it was he that told Dr. Bailey [Brown] to have someone other than her to treat Edna Moses because of their relationship and that Dr. Bailey herself needed psychological and medical attention.” The report concluded, “the hospital felt that Dr. Bailey was a part of the conditon [sic] that Edna Moses suffered from.”
Chick next charges that PFO “neglected to include that many of the perscriptions [sic] for Demerol were obvious forgeries.” The burden is on Chick or Brown to provide evidence that the prescriptions were forged. The legal investigation found that Brown had written over 100 prescriptions for Demerol from several pharmacies. Affidavits from the pharmacists confirmed Brown had written the prescriptions, many of them in the presence of the pharmacist. The “Case-Complaint Report” again hurts Chick’s claim. The report says “All of the pharmacies are familiar with Dr. Bailey [Brown] and said she would come in almost all of the time that she wrote the prescriptions for Edna Moses and pick[ed] up the medicine herself.”
Chick then claims that the reason Brown could not properly defend herself at the hearing was that she “did not have the money to hire a lawyer because her office manager had embezzled thousands of dollars from the practice.” No evidence of this charge has been found, nor were such charges ever brought against the office manager.
Chick says the medical authorities “had ONLY paid off testimonies of people — NO photographs or hard evidence. The whole thing was an extremely good frame-up.” It is Chick’s statements, not PFO’s, that are made without “hard evidence.” PFO researchers examined hundreds of pages of state’s evidence, including affidavits, submitted in the hearing against Brown. PFO researchers spoke to many witnesses, including police, hospital officials, medical licensing board authorities and family members. Their statements about Brown and Moses do not contradict one another. On the other hand, Brown and Moses have repeatedly changed their story.
Therefore, there is more reason to trust the testimony of the court witnesses than the accounts found in Brown’s books and tapes.
Chick then states, “As for Chesterfield, [Ind.,] all you have to do is pick any Road Atlas and you will find it listed as a ‘Spiritualists Camp.'” That was exactly the point the article made. Brown’s books, not the PFO article, call Camp Chesterfield a “witch camp.”
He continues, “I also wonder why those folks make such a big emphasis that ‘witchcraft is NOT connected to Satanism in any way.’ Now isn’t that interesting. Witches serve the same demons as the Satanist, no matter what they call them.”
Chick has taken what the PFO article said and, by adding the words “in any way,” changed what it said. The article did not say satanism and witchcraft were not connected “in any way.” It is the belief at PFO that satanism and witchcraft both spring from the same source, Satan, but that the two belief systems are not the same practice. Spiritualism, while being occultic, also is a distinct practice.
Christians know the source of both Mormon and Watchtower theology is Satan, but these two are not the same.
The position set froth by PFO is documented and confirmed by experts in the occult. Other experts will concur with PFO’s perception of witchcraft and satanism. Further, even a casual reading of occultic literature produced by either group (witches or satanists) demonstrates the distinction that Brown, Moses or Chick fail to make.
For example, The Truth About Witchcraft Today states in its Preface that, “This book is an introduction to witchcraft, perhaps the least understood practice of our time. Witchcraft isn’t a cauldron of human sacrifice, drug, orgies and devil-worship. Nor does it describe a supernatural world filled with unearthly dealings with demons.” The petition made in this publication is by no means an isolationist’s opinion, but reflects the general consensus of witches.
Chick’s next defense of Brown consists of “you should know her strong stand for Jesus… I have known them (Brown and Moses) and watched the fruit of their lives for over four years now. I have personally seen them bring people out of Satanism to a deep commitment to Jesus Christ. And, I have watched those people, in turn, grow in the Lord and bring others to Jesus. This is not something witches would do!”
In spite of Chick’s claims, Christians must not become so naive that they lose their understanding of Paul’s warning to Timothy:
“If anyone advocates a different doctrine, and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of great gain.” (1 Timothy 6:3-5) Christians must not lose sight of this scriptural decree of honesty and integrity of character as well as purity of doctrine.
Chick also hints that PFO called Brown and Moses witches. The article simply does not say that. While some people interviewed for the article believe the two women still practice witchcraft, PFO drew no such conclusion.
Chick’s letter goes on to say, “Rebecca IS a legal M.D. I have seen her diploma from a valid university here in the U.S. She was set up and framed by the Satanists. The Lord allowed everything she had to be wiped out in one week by Satan. Brown refers to this in her second book. Her medical license was revoked in the State of Indiana. However, that does not revoke her medical degree. The license gives a doctor the right to write perscriptions [sic] in any particular state.”
PFO never challenged her educational qualifications. On page 10 of the newsletter, her educational background was detailed. Nevertheless, it is not her medical degree that allows her to practice medicine. It is her medical license that allowed her to practice medicine. Chick’s letter minimizes the importance of the license, saying only that it gives a “doctor the right to write prescriptions in any particular state.” The license also gives a doctor the right to diagnose, order tests, treat disorders and perform procedures. These are the privileges which have been stripped from Brown, even though she still retains her medical degree.
Next, Chick says “Rebecca’s books are scripturally sound and have brought many to Jesus Christ.” PFO contends that they are unsound. Pages 281-283 of Brown’s book, He Came To Set The Captives Free, provide one example:
“An incident with a familiar spirit happened in my own office just recently… That particular evening, one of my last patients was a fairly powerful local warlock. I do not think that at that point he had any idea I knew his true identity.
Somehow, that evening Joshua, my cat, got loose and came into the room where the patient was. I grabbed him up before the patient had the opportunity to touch him…
As I carried Joshua out of the room the Lord revealed to me that I was too late. The patient had succeeded in putting a familiar spirit demon into him. One second, that all it took!
After all the patients were gone, I was sitting in my personal office talking with two friends. The change in Joshua was remarkable. Normally he is an extremely calm and quiet cat. But as we sat talking, he paced continuously from one to the other of us, looking up at each one of us as we talked. I explained to the others what had happened. The patient was using the cat’s eyes and ears to monitor all that was going on. I picked up Joshua and looking directly into his now glaring eyes said:
‘Now you listen to me, Jimmy (the patient’s name). Your master Satan is a liar. He is not stronger than Jesus. Jesus Christ is God and He died on the cross for you as well as me. Jesus is the one you should be serving, not Satan. Now I’m going to prove to you that what I am saying is true. We are going to cast your familiar spirit out of this animal with the power of Jesus Christ. If Satan is as strong as he says he is, we should not be able to do this.’
I then took some oil and anointed Joshua and we joined in prayer asking our Lord Jesus to cast out the demon. Again, the change was immediate. The glare left his eyes, he stopped struggling and with a big sigh lay [sic] down and promptly fell asleep.”
Brown then offers her readers the following advice:
“If you have pets, always be alert to the possibility of their having familiar spirits, but please be sure to briefly share the gospel before casting out the demon or asking the Lord to remove the human spirit. Usually you will not know if you are dealing solely with a human spirit or with a demon, and whenever possible you want the satanist involved to hear the gospel. We daily pray for special shielding of our animals.
Animals are usually easily cleared because they do not sin, therefore Satan has no legal ground in them in the same way he does humans.”
Brown’s stories are fiction. It is sad when believers put any faith in such nonsense. This type of theology has cheapened and made a mockery of the precious blood of our Savior Jesus Christ.
Other Christian writers have taken issue with statements made in Brown’s books. Albert J. Dager, in a special issue of Media Spotlight, devoted four pages to the questionable theology espoused by “Rebecca and Elaine.” His critique is worth reading. (A copy of the critique can be obtained from Media Spotlight, P.O. Box 290, Redmond, WA 98073-0290).
Dager finds several problems in the women’s story:
“One problem with Rebecca’s and Elaine’s testimonies is their vagueness. For example, we are never told in what cities any of the alleged incidents occurred. Rebecca’s ‘Memorial Hospital,’ could be anywhere in the world. [The] only understandable ambiguity is the changing of personal names to protect the innocent, which is reasonable in view of the possible consequences to people’s lives.
Since their testimonies involve interaction with the spirit realm, however, and since [this] kind of interaction recounted has no precedent in Scripture, their ambiguous approach leaves readers with nothing more than blind trust upon which to base their acceptance of what they read. By the same token, there is an equally justifiable reason to reject what is said as the figment of two women’s imaginations.”
Finally, Chick implies the reason Brown and Moses are being persecuted is because Satan wants to stop them. Chick says Satan “cannot discredit their message, so he is trying to discredit them, the messengers.” He adds that he is not “surprised that the persecution is coming from within the professing Christian Church.”
The message of Brown and Moses can be discredited by any dis cerning layman. Since the release of PFO’s article, many Chris tians have contacted us thanking us for our research and the publication of our findings. Many of those who contact PFO said that upon reading Brown’s books, they knew immediately that the books were full of unbiblical concepts.
It is not Satan who wants to stop Brown’s message. It is Christians who love the truth. Brown’s publications cultivate fear and present a distorted view of demonology, something Satan himself desires to implant within Christians.
It is time the Church stood firm on the Word of God and tested and exposed false authorities such as Brown. Her books unjustly incriminate Christians as occultists. This is nothing short of being an “accuser of the brethren,” a label given to the devil himself. (Revelation 12:10)
Finally, PFO has been told that some objected to the article because Chick, Brown and Moses were not contacted before its publication. PFO chose not to contact them because Chick had ignored others who tried to warn him about Brown and Moses before he published their books. Chick reportedly turned on one friend, a pastor, who tried to warn him about publishing Brown’s and Moses’ story. He now considers the pastor an adversary. Chick even went so far as to include a caricature of the pastor in a recent publication.
With this type of response to friends who expressed concern for Chick’s ministry, why would PFO’s research and evidence be treated any differently? Even after the publication of the facts, Chick’s attitude towards PFO’s findings is one of indifference. The publication and sale of Brown’s books have excluded it from being a private matter. To those who may charge that Matthew 18:15-17 should have been applied on PFO’s part, need to realize that what has been done is publicly criticized public teaching. Matthew 18 does not apply, but Galatians 2 does. There is a difference.
In addition, PFO was asked to do something that Brown and Moses did not do. PFO researchers spoke directly with several people incriminated in Brown’s books and tapes. None had been contacted before publication of those books.
(c) 1990 – PFO – All rights reserved by Personal Freedom Outreach. Reproduction is prohibited except for portions intended for personal use and noncommercial purposes. For reproduction permission, please contact: Personal Freedom Outreach, P.O. Box 26026, Saint Louis, Missouri 63136, (314) 388-2648.