Summing up Peck

Posted by owner on November 26, 2008

In People of the Lie Christian psychiatrist W. Scott Peck argued that some people are “evil,” which he defined as so committed to protecting the image of themselves that they seek to project that they will do anything to avoid revealing their flaws and failures. That “anything” typically is decietfulo and destructive to people around them.

In Glympses of the Devil” Peck went further, recognizing an evil supernatural presence which he felt forced to confront. This led him to search actively for evidence of demonic or Satanic possession. He identified two clear cases of possession, and personally conducted exorcisms.

I’ve reported on both books in earlier blogs. But I thought you might be interested in some of the insights Peck shares in the second book, Glympses. They are interesting, not because Peck became an “expert” on demonization–he didn’t– or an reliable theologian — he’s not. They’re interesting because Peck looks at demonization from the viewpoint of a psychiatrist and a lay Christian, and writes from that viewpoint.

So here come some of what seem to me his more notable comments.

Ain’t no devil . . . is there?

“Over the years I had deeply expereienced not only human goodness and the existence of a benigh spirit–namesly, God — but I had also experienced human evil. This left a glaring hole in my understanding of both psychiatry and theology: the obvious question of whether there was such a thing as an evil spirit or the devil. I thought not. In common with 99.9 percent of psychiatrists [and with 80 percent of Catholic priests polled confidentially in 1960] I did not believe in the devil” (p 2)

“I realized that I could well have walked right over such a case [of demonization] in previous years because we humans have a remarkable capacity to overlook things we don’t believe in.” (p.3)

Then the devil showed up

So Peck set out to identify unmistakable cases of possession–and located “Jersey.” After being convinced, he conducted a successful exorcism with a team of other believers. After the successful exorcism Peck was shaken to learn that Jersey, who had been deeply involved in New Age spiritism, still heard the voices that had controlled her life previously. But then Jersey explained, an explanation which seems to me to go to the heart of extreme possession.

Peck reports that Jersey drew a fetus in the amniotic sack, and explained: “‘Before the exorcism, I was like this fetus. The demons were like the fluid. They totally surrounded me. None of me was visible. No one could hear me through what they were saying.
   “‘These arrows represent the voices of the demons. Before the exorcism, I was captive to their voices. I couldn’t really separate their voices from my own. Often I wanted to scream out, ‘Hey, it’s me in here,’ but nobody, including you, could have heard me. I was in the demons’ control. I was powerless.’
   “Then Jersey drew some more arrows still pointed at the feturs, but this time outside the womb. ‘This is what their voices are like now,’ she elaborated. ‘You see, they are outside of me now. They can’t get at me. I can hear them, but they’re not as distinct as before. Even more important, I don’t have any trouble today distinguishing between them and me, between their voice and my voice. Do you understand?’”

Convinced

“As a psychiatrist I have been converted by Jersey’s case alone, from a belief that the devil did not exist to a belief–a certainty–that the devil does exist and probably demons (under control of the devil) as well. By the devil I mean a spirit that is powerful  . . . (and manifests itself in a variety of distinctly paranormal ways), thoroughly malevolent (its only motivation seemed to be the destruction of human beings or the entire human race), deceitful and vain, capable of taking up a kind or residence with the mind, brain, soul or body of susceptible and willing human beings–a spirit that had various names (among them Lucifer and Satan), that was real and did exist. (p. 238).

Does “the devil make me do it”?

Speaking of another author’s believe that thoroughly evil people are rare and that evil may be a symptom of possession, Peck comments, “I, on the other hand, believe that thoroughly evil people are quite common–much more common than the possessed–and depicted several of them in People of the Lie in considerable detail. . . I do not think that people of the lie need Satan to recruit them to their evil. I believe that they are quite capable of recruiting themselves.”

Summing up

In the final chapter of Glympses of the Devil Peck draws a number of conclusions. I list them here not because I agree with each but because of their general interest. They are:

* Possession is not an accident. [Agree]
* In becoming possessed the victim must, at least in some way, cooperate with or sell out to the devil.[Agree]
* Such initial sell-outs are probably more often than not made under great duress. [Agree]
* Thereafter possession is a deepening process over time unless the victim renegs on the pact. [Question?]
* The victim of possession can choose to renege on the pact at any time,[question?] but he longer the possession the more difficult the option becomes without exorcism [agree].
* A exorcism is a massive theapeutic intervention to liberate, teach, and support the victim to choose to reject the devil. [partly agree]
* The more recent the the time of onset of the possession, the more the exorcism is liekly to be successful. [it's certainly one factor].
* Exorcism of genuinely possessed people should be expected to be combative, meaning at least some physical restraint will be required. [Sometimes. See my last post.]
*The use of at least one deliverance either for healing, diagnosis, or both should be a standard part of the management of a case prior to exorcism. [agree]
* Deliverance should be conducted by a team of at least three, exorcisms by a team of six or more. [question?]
* Possession is the most severe but not the only kind of demonic affliction. {agree}

What lies ahead?

Peck concludes by stating that his conclusions [above] are tentative, and the whole area needs to be recognized as a “respectable field of research and study.” However, he adds, “acceptance of demonology into the scientific fold is not going to happen–at least not until history itself is reformed, not until a 350-year-old separation of the world of supposed natural phenomena from the world of supernatural phenomena is revisited, and recognized by all concerned has having been a gigantic mistake.”

He’s certainly right in this.

Tragically, those of us who claim to believe in the supernatural seem nearly as intent as the so-called “scientific” community on ignoring demonization.

And this leaves those who are oppressed or possessed by demons with almost nowhere to turn.

A Matter of Good and Evil?

Posted by owner on November 11, 2008

I’ve been reading M.Scott Peck’s book, “People of the Lie.” And right away I want to make it clear that he’s an exception to my general criticism of psychatrists as professionals who’ve deteriorated into mere pill pushers.

Not that Peck doesn’t prescribe medication for depression and such. It’s just that he recognizes that there’s more to pyschological problems than can be explained by how the brain functions.

Dr. Peck is best known for his book, “The Road Less Traveled.” He’s a Christian, and though in “People of the Lie” he doesn’t seem sure whether Satan is a person or an influence, on most issues he’s very sensitive to biblical truth.

His general thesis in this book is that some people are just plain evil, “people of the lie,” and that psychiatry needs to better understand evil. As you might expect, this notion hasn’t proven popular with Peck’s peers, and he’s been criticised harshly.

There are several reasons why the issue Peck raises is relevant to our exploration of the role of deliverance in healing. First, there’s the question of whether “good” people as well as “evil” people can be possessed. Second, there’s the question of whether possession causes people to become “evil.” And third, there’s the question of whether “evil” people can experience deliverance.

What is an “evil” person

So what does Peck mean when he says that some people are “good” and some are “evil?”
Well, he doesn’t mean that “good” people are sinless. Peck believes in original sin, and that we all fall short in many ways. Peck’s “good” people may do mean and selfish things, they may lash out at others, they may even perform criminal acts. Interestingly, Peck see’s most “evil” people as individuals who outwardly appear to live exemplary lives and who are respected by others in their communities.

The difference is that the “good” people recognize they are flawed and feel guilty when they do something that is mean or harmful. The people who are “evil” refuse to recognize that they are flawed, and are driven to project an image of themselves as faultless. Strikingly, this image is both public and private. That is, “evil” people are committed to protect their public image and to rationalize away any of their own behavior that might normally lead a “good” person to accept responsiblity for a wrong act.

Peck’s classic examples are two sets of parents who acted out their hostility toward their sona, but rather than acknowledge such image-shattering truth, cloaked their hostility as concern and blamed the child rather than face the truth of their own failures.

It’s an interesting, and theologically accute insight. The “good” realize they are sinners and face that reality. The “evil” refuse to acknowledge their sins, and will sacrifice any person or any relationship to protect their distorted image of themselves. The more evil a person is, the fiercer the drive for self-protection . . . and the more actual evil they do to others in order to preserve their self- and their public image.

The first question

The immediate question this analysis raises for us is, can “good” people as well as “evil” people be demon possessed? This is an important question, because it raises the issue of whether the demon possessed should be blamed for their situation.

I’ll discuss this in a future article, but the short answer is, Yes, “good” people as well as ”evil” people can be oppressed and even possessed by demons. While there appear to be things that pople do that give demons “lawful” access, there usually isn’t necessarily an intent to open one’s life to the dark side. As I said, we’ll take this issue up in another article.

The second question

The second question is, Will demon possession cause people to become “evil”? The short answer to this is, Not necessarily. Typically demons persecute those they possess. Typically the possessed are victims of evil, not the perpetraitors of evil. Demon possession will not necessarily change an individuals total character.

Let me explain what I mean. We are all sinners, and are capable of sins that cause others pain and suffering. But not everyone is committed to “evil”, either in Peck’s sense of refusal to accept responsibility for moral flaws and immoral actions, or in the sense of a person truly committed to doing evil, as Hitler’s cabal was dedicated to the holocaust. Demons generally fasten on one aspect of a person’s life and seek to control it. It’s relatively unusual for demons to gain control of the total personally so as to cause the person to become truly “evil.”

At the same time, it’s important to remember that demons ARE evil. In fact, Satan is described as a liar and a murderer from the begining, and the “father” (source) of lies. Like Peck’s “people of the lie,” demons dread being exposed for what they are, and will attempt all manners of subterfuges to remain hidden. Because of this it may seem that some who are possessed are trying to hide when actually its the demon who is unwilling to be exposed.

The third question

The third question is, Can “evil” people experience deliverance? The short answer to this question is, It’s not very likely.

The reason for this is that “evil” people by their very nature resist exposure of their flaws. In this the person is cooperating with the demons, who are even more committed to resisting exposure.

For deliverance an individual needs to cooperate with the process of expelling the demons. This cooperation involves acknowledging the demon’s presence, rooting out the “lawful” basis for the demon’s presence, and often the confession of sin, repentance, the acceptance of forgiveness, and rejection of the demon.

Needless to say, a person who is “evil” by Peck’s definition is unlikely to acknowledge a demon’s presence. He or she typically will resist any attempt to root out the “lawful” basis for the demon’s presence. He or she will actively fight confession of sin and repentance. Even an offer of forgiveness is repellant to the “evil,” for to accept forgiveness is to admit the need for forgivess–something the “evil” are desperate to avoid.

Peck’s contribution

W. Scott Peck’s definition of “evil” is unusual. And incomplete. There are definitely other definitions, both philosophical and theological, that we would need to take into account in any study of evil itself.

Nevertheless Peck’s psychological definition makes a vital contribution to our understanding of the dynamics of deliverance and healing. His “evil” people will resist every effort of the Spirit of God to touch their hearts, in essence taking sides with the demons who torment them rather than face exposure of the self they are committed to hiding from others . . . and from themselves.

                                              Add your questions and comments.