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 Publica-
tions. (See The Quarterly Journal, Oct.-Dec., 1989, "Drugs,
Demons & Delusions; The 'Amazing' Saga of Rebecca and Elaine,"
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, en-
counters 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
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. Neverthe-
less, 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 de-
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 indi-
cate 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 per-
formed 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 inject-
ing 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 Psy-
chiatric 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 Depart-
ment 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 origi-
nal report suggesting she [Brown] was not psychiatrically dis-
turbed, but subsequent information about her religious preoccupa-
tions 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 dis-
closure indicated that even on the basis of a "major disadvan-
tage" 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 psycho-
sis, 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 Depart-
ment of Psychiatry, September 17, 1984)
Chick also contends "The psychiatrist's report that made it
into the final hearing never even evaluated Rebecca!" That state-
ment 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
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 investi-
gation 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 pre-
scriptions 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 testimo-
nies 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 research-
ers examined hundreds of pages of state's evidence, including
affidavits, submitted in the hearing against Brown. PFO re-
searchers spoke to many witnesses, including police, hospital
officials, medical licensing board authorities and family mem-
bers. 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
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 theol-
ogy 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, per-
haps 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, abu-
sive 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) Chris-
tians 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
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 Cap-
tives 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 re-
markable. 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
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 es-
poused 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 ambi-
guity is the changing of personal names to protect the innocent,
which is reasonable in view of the possible consequences to
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
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 Chris-
tians 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
With this type of response to friends who expressed concern for
Chick's ministry, why would PFO's research and evidence be treat-
ed 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
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 Out-
reach. 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.
These documents are free from , providing free webcontent for websites around the world!. copy freely with this link intact. BelieversCafe.com