Archive for November, 2008
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.
Posted by owner on
November 25, 2008
I mentioned in a recent post that there seems to be some confusion about exorcism. Can exorcisms be conducted by a single individual in an office? Or does it take a team working intensively over a period of several days? And what about deliverance? Is “deliverance” just another way of saying “exorcism”?
Quick and easy
For instance, take the reported in Acts of Paul’s deliverance/exorcism of the clairvoyant slave girl. She followed him around the city proclaiming that he was a servant of the most high God showing men the way of salvation. After several days the irritated Apostle almost casually turned to the girl and commanded the evil spirit in her leave.
We may wonder Why Paul was irritated. Perhaps the girl’s voice dripped with sarcasm. Or more likely, it was inappropriate to accept the testimony of demons. Whatever the reason, the demon was cast out. And so easily! There was no four day ordeal like that which Peck describes, in which a team of half a dozen struggled with an evil spirit.
And we can find parallels in the literature. For instance, Peter Horrobin in a book I reviewed earlier tells of a time he’d just begun to preach. He was teaching on the power of Jesus over sickness and evil spirits and a woman in the congregation fell on the floor in convulsions. A moment or two later, a demon left her body and she relaxed, later telling that she hadn’t even know the evil spirit was present.
Spurgeon, the great English preacher, used to become quite upset because people would be healed as he was preaching. They were delivered . . . and Spurgeon had intended no such thing.
Quick. Easy. Almost casual. And even unintended?
Long and hard
Then there’s the story in the Gospels of a father whose son was demon-possessed. This was a realy hostile demon; it used to cause convulsions and seemingly tried to throw the child into fires. The father brought the boy to the disciples, and they accepted the challenge. After all, Jesus had commissioned them to travel through Galilee healing the sick and casting out demons. They’d cast out demons before. But this time nine of them (Peter, James aned John were off witnessing Jesus’ transfiguration) were powerless. The demon paid them no attention at all!
When Jesus joined them the father complained, and the nine apparently looked quite sheepish. Jesus then spoke to the demon and it convulsed the child one the last time, and left. Later the nine asked why they hadn’t been able to cast it out. Jesus’ answer? “This kind doesn’t come out except by prayer and fasting.”
Those words, “this kind,” provide the key that helps us understand not only the particular case but also contemporary exorcisms that seem to take a dedicated team not just hours, but days.
This Kind
One of the things Scripture makes relatively clear is that not all angels are created equal.
The Book of Daniel tells of an angel who told the aged prophet that as soon as Daniel began to pray he had been dispatched to bring Daniel God’s answer. But a spirit being identified as the “Prince of Persia” had blocked the angel’s way, and for three weeks he’d been unable to break through to give Daniel God’s answer. Then, the angel reported, Michael came and cleared the way. Michael, an archangel, simply overpowered the Prince of Persia.
In the New Testament the apostle Paul mentions spirit beings whom he ranks as thrones and powers and dominions and rulers, etc.
When we combine everything Scripture states or implies about angels (and demons are rebel angels) its clear that there is a heirarchy of spirit beings; that among both angels and demons there are differences in power and authority. Some are greater and more powerful than others.
This is what Jesus is refering to when he speaks of “this kind.” The demon that possessed the child was a far more powerful demon than most. Casting him out was a task beyond the present competence of the disciples, and even in the future they would have to dedicate themselves to prayer and fasting to exorcism demons as great as he.
Not the whole story
Certainly the relative power of the demon(s) troubling an individual is a significant factor in understanding the experiences reported by exorcists. But there seems to be at least one other important factor. And that is the extent of the possession. By that I simply mean, how deeply has the demon penetrated the personality of the victim?
It’s very clear in some accounts that (usually several) demons have gained effective control of the individual. Almost everything the victim does or thinks is controled by the demons. In other cases demon(s) seem to be external to the victim, disrupting his or her physical health, but not dramatically affected the victims pyschological wellbeing.
As I currently see things I’d tend to rank demonization along a continuum. Each movement adds new symptoms rather than replacing earlier symptoms.
At the same time each movement makes a deliverance of exocism more difficult. Ultimately this is because the individual must choose to cooperate in expelling the demons, and in the case of extreme demonization, where the person and his demons are committed to evil, when the crtitical moment comes it’s unlikely the indiviudal to choose to be rid of his or her demons.
General oppression May involve mild chronic illnesses, mild anxieties, psychological disorientation. Generally lower ranking demons are involved, who can be dealt with realitively easily.
Focused oppression Significant chronic illness are fequently involved, and the victim has trouble controling some area(s) (sexuaql, social, addictive, causing problems. Again lower to midlevel demons are probably involved, and can be dealt with by delieverance sessions and prayer along with follow up counseling.
Partial possession. Characteruzed by significant relational problems with one or more areas out of control, distorted thinking, confusion, depression and or panic, likely thoughts of suicide. Often aware of an evil presence. Full range of demons may be present. A team approach to dealing with the demons is preferable, and exgensive follow up teaching is essential.
Full Possession The victim may be unresponsive to others expectations, show clear symptoms of mental illness, be out of touch with reality, and loose control to the demons present. Erratic behavior and confusion are likely. Generally more powerful demons are present, and significant time will be involved in exorcisng them. Follow-up teaching is essential.
Extreme possession The personality clearly is evil. A high ranking demon is present. Any approach to exorcism may fail because of the unwillingness of the victim to see the demon leave.
Mental illness
The characteristics of several stages of demonization may involve behavior that psychatrists classify as mental illnesses–depression, panic, parnoia, hysteria, etc. I’m not suggesting here such persons should be treated for demonization rather than the mental illness. The question rather is whether a person is mentally is and demon possessed or simply mentally ill. Even when a demon is exorcized follow-up treatment is often called for, although I tend to think that teaching key biblical truths is more effective than traditional pyschiatric treatment.
What’s the value
As I noted, I’m not certain that this organization of my current understanding of this area is accurate. At best its tentative, and I expect to revise and clarify. At worst, I’m totally off track.
Even so, I think that attempting to organize thinking by using such a tool is helpful. It makes explicit something that I’m sure is really important . . . that we can’t lump all cases of demonization together without becoming totally confused. And that we can’t approach dealing with the demonic as if one size fit every situation.
It’s also helpful in another way. Dr. Pike tells of unsuccessffuly trying for years to find a case of demon possession. Finally he located just two. And he concluded that demonization, while real, is rare. However the cases he mentions in “People of the Lie” and describes thoroughly a later book, “Glympses of the Devil,” are clearly cases of full possession by several demons, of whom at least one was extremely powerful. I suspect that Peck, who had been influenced by Malaci Martin’s book, “Hostage to the Devil,” was so focused on finding an absolutely clear case of demon possession that he simply failed to recognize cases of oppression or partial possession.
While we certainly don’t want to go about looking for demons under every rock, it’s important to be aware that demons are subtle creatures who prefer to remain hidden. The chances are they’re far more active in our world than we suspect. And the more we can learn about them, the more likely that we, and the Church, can free ourselves from their influecne.
Posted by owner on
November 17, 2008
I mentioned in my last post that in Scott Peck’s book, “People of the Lie,” he says that he became convinced that “human evil” is a reality that psychiatry has not only overlooked, but also has denied. It took Dr. Peck some 15 years of practice to begin th understand the reality and nature of human evil. But, as I also mentioned, while Peck was a believer, he still couldn’t accept the notion that evil supernatural beings exist.
Considering himself a good scientist, Dr. Peck began searching for possible cases of possession. The search was difficult–few of his peers bought into the concept of human evil, much less the idea that Satan and demons might actually exist. But in time Peck did identify two individuals who he believed were possessed by the devil. And he took part in two exorcisms.
Each exorcism was difficult. In each case a team of seven to nine people struggled for several days to get the demon to come out into the open, and then to drive him out. But each exorcism was successful: the demon-possessed person was freed and through continuing psychotherapy grew rapidly toward mental and spiritual maturity.
Based on his experience Peck drew several conclusions which he shares in his book “People of the Lie.”
I won’t evaluate those conculsions just now. I will in future posts. But I will raise an impotant question. How can we know whether or not Peck’s conclusions are valid? How can we know whether anything written about demons, demonic-possession, and deliverance is true? How can you have confidence in anything I write in this blog?
Sources of information
When I began this blog I noted that we have several sources of information about demons and the demonic. We have: the testimony of other religions, the testimony of the church, the testimony of those who have been possessed, the testimony of exorcists, the testimony of demons themselves, and — the only truly authoritative source — Scripture. Let’s take a closer look at each source.
The testimony of the church. This seems to Protestants to be a highly questionable source. To most Protestants “the testimony of the church” sounds Roman Catholic, and Protestants still tend to be wary of Catholic teaching. However, all I mean by “the testimony of the church” is that over the milleniums Christians have spoken of demon possession and exorcism. Not only does the Book of Acts describe exorcisms after Jesus’ resurrection, the church fathers and others through the succeeding centuries have testified to both possession and exorcism. There is a trail of teaching that persists throughout our era of demonic activity and deliverance.
It’s certainly true that in the Middle Ages, for instance, wild notions about devils with horns and tails were adopted by most believers. But sober testimony of demons and exorcisms is present in the writings of Christian leaders in most eras. The conclusion we have to draw is that Christians have believed in and experienced the demonic throughout our era.
Still, While tradition testifies to the existance of demons and the reality of exorcism, we gain little insight into the nature of possession or the process of exorcism from this source.
The testimony of other religions. Pagan religions, from animism to Hinduism, assume that demons are real and can harm human beings. The same is true for the other monotheistic faiths, Islam and historic Judaism [rabinic Judaism excepted]. Again the ideas about demons and the magical approaches to dealing with evil spirts make little contribution to our knowledge of demons and exorcism. But nearly all pagan religions incorporate a belief in evil spiritual beings, whatever sources they may ascribe. The universality of the belief in evil spirits is evidence of their existence.
The testimony of the delivered. Believers who have been delivered from evil spirits have told of their experiences. By gathering these testimonies and studying consistencies, valid information about demons and possession can be gathered. The key phrase here is “studying consistencies.” When the experiences of many people who have experienced possession and have been delivered are compared, themes that emerge in most of those experience can be tentatively assemed to provide valid information about possession.
The testimony of exorcists. There are many more stories about exorcism written by Christians who served as exorcists or participated in exorcisms than there stories related by those who have experienced possession. I expect this may because reliving the experience through retelling is painful. There’s no doubt that some of the stories told by self-proclaimed exorcists have little basis in reality. At the same time, there are many whose testimony is reliable. I’ve recounted stories told by one two persons whom I know and trust in my book, “Every Good and Evil Angel,” published by Nelson.
Again, to separate valid information from questionable, its vital to compare many accounts and identify consistencies and inconsistencies. Fortunately, quite often exorcisms are recorded on audio or video tape — a very wise thing to do in a litegenous culture like our own! On such audio or video recordings the changes in voice and demenor which typically occur when a demon speaks through a person he possesses are obvious. [The recorded voice of a demon plays a significant role in the climatic courtroom scene in the fifth of my six Invisible War novels.]
As one studies exorcists’ stories there are definite consitencies that I believe permit us to speak with confidence about many characteristics of demonic possession, and to understand the process of deliverance and exorcism.
The testimony of the demons themselves. One of the keys to effective exorcism is to get the demon or demons to reveal themselves. When the demon surfaces, the exorcist speaks with the demon and the demon responds. At this point it’s important to solicit certain information from the demon: its name, its function, its relationship with other demons who may be present, and its “legal basis” for being present in the inidividual. [I'll have more to say on this idea of a "legal basis" in a future post.]
It’s also important NOT to try to solicit general information on the supernatural world. The first reason for this is that demon’s by nature are liars. We are far more likely to solicit half-truths and lies that are confusing than we are to solicit the truth. This can lead to confusion and misunderstandings. The second and most important reason is that to probe for general information can impede the process of the exorcism. Our goal is to cast out the demon(s), rather than use them as informants. During an exorcism we should seek only information relevant to expelling the demon.
These two factors make any general information gathered from a demon during an exorcism or at any other time highly suspect, and not to be trusted.
The testimony of Scripture. This is the one totally trustworthy guide to understanding demon possession and deliverance. Scripture establishes the reality of Satan and demons. It describes characteristics of possession. And it provides basic information on deliverance and exorcism.
However, Scriputre does not provide any step-by-step guide to deliverance ministry or to exorcism. And there is much importan information about possession and exorcism that is not provided in Scripture. And, unfortunately, people have a tendancy to misinterpret or missapply the Word of God in this area as in others. Still, rightly exigeted, the Bible clearly states the foundational truths on which our understanding of possession and exorcism must be based, and provides truths against which conclusions drawn from othe sources of information can be tested.
Returning to Dr. Peck
In “People of the Lie” Peck relates conclusions he drew from participating in two exorcisms.
Certain of these conclusions are valid: Satan exists. Satan [demons] can and do possess humans. Demon’s are utterly, totally evil. Demons can be driven out of the possessed. The mental illnesses of possessed persons can be healed and distorted patterns of thought can be corrected.
But a number of Peck’s conclusions seem to me to be flawed, rooted in his limited experience with demon possession a fact he freely admits; that at the time he was a “baby Christian.” For instance, Peck concludes that demonic possession is unusual. I believe that the type of possession he experienced is unusual, but that other types are far more common. Peck concludes that exorcism should only be attempted with the support of a team of believers able to committ several consecutive days to the process. I know of cases where demon(s) were expelled more quickly. and through the ministry of a single Christian counselor or minister (although normally supported by the prayers of others.)
So while Peck’s reports of demon possession and exorcism in “People of the Lie” are significant, particularly in view of his profession and the influence he has had in helping gain acceptance of the relevance of religious concepts in the practice of psychaitry, his conclusions also are significantly flawed.
In future posts, then, I intend to look at evidence drawn from the sources discussed above, and suggest what I believe are valid conclusions about demon oppression and possession, and valid principles which can guide the process of exorcism.
Again, if you have questions or comments, please add them.
Testimony of the possessed. Those who have been delivered from from demon possession have
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.
Posted by owner on
November 6, 2008
How close is the connection between demonic activity and illness? That’s a question we’ll probably never be able to answer. Certainly we’d be wrong to suggest that all, or even most, illness is demonic in origin. In the milleniums since Creation errors have crept into our DNA, and today the susceptibility to many diseases can be traced to these distortions.
At the same time, it would be wrong to conclude that evil spirits have no role in human afflictions. We are whole creatures: physical illnesses can and do have an impact on our psychological and spiritual state, and visa versa. Whether evil spirits cause physical illness or use physical illness as a doorway through which to mount their attacks isn’t the issue.
The issue is, does deliverance have a role to play in healing? And for an answer we need to look first to Scripture.
A quick nod to the Apostle Paul
When the Apostle Paul wrote 2 Corinthians he was troubled by what many commentators believe was a disfiguring eye disease that significantly affected his sight. In an often quoted passage (2 Corinthians 12:7-10) Paul calls this affliction a “thorn in the flesh,” and “a messenger from Satan.” As Paul isn’t given to hyperbole, we can take this attribution of his affliction to the Prince of Evil Spirits at face value. Paul tells us that he prayed three time for healing, but that the Lord’s answer was “No,” coupled with the statement that God’s grace was sufficient for him.
Later a friend from Philippi named Epaphroditus fell sick while visiting Paul and almost died (Php 3:25-29). In reporting Epaphroditus’ recovery to the Philippians Paul gives no hint of any demonic participation in the illness, or that deliverance was involved in his treatment.
When we compare the two incidents it would seem that while the Apostle recognized a demonic involvement in his affliction, he also recognized that Epaphroditus’ sickness was “natural.”
One of the issues we’ll need to explore as we continue examining deliverance is, how are we to recognize demonic involvement in our own and/or others’ illness?
An overview of Jesus’ healing ministry
The Gospels often picture Jesus traveling through Galilee “healing and casting out demons.” There are a number of such general statements or descriptions of Jesus’ healing ministry, in distinction to the Gospels’ descriptions of Jesus’ ministry to specific individuals. The juxtaposition of healing and casting out demons in general statements about healing is significant. First, the assoication of healing and demon possession in the general statemnts suggests a close link between demon possession and sickness. But second, the juxtaposition also implies a distinction between ordinary illnesses and illnesses involving demons.
General references to Jesus’ healing ministry occur 11 times in Matthew. In four of these Jesus is also said to either “heal” [one time] the demon possessed or “drive out” demons. General references to Jesus’ healing ministry occur six times in Mark, and three of these references also describe driving out demons. General references to Jesus’ healing ministry occur 11 times in Luke, and three of these referemces also describe “curing” [a term used this way only by Luke] the demon possessed. [Note: In Luke "cure" focuses on result rather than the means Jesus used to restore health and wellbeing.]
A comparison of all the general references to healing suggests that Jesus treated demon possession and ordinary illnesses differently. While Jesus “healed” natural illnesses, He “drove out” (exorcised) demons.
A closer look at Nine Incidents
It’s even more instructive to look at the nine incidents reported in the Gospels where Jesus drove demons from specific individuals.
1. Matthew 9:30s Jesus drives a demon from a man who can not talk, restoring his ability to speak.
2. Matthew 12:20s Jesus drives a demon from a man who is blind and mute, restoring both his sight and his voice.
3. Matthew 17:18 Jesus drives a demon from an epileptic boy
4. Mark 7:24-30 Jesus drives a demon from a Syrophoenician woman. No symptoms mentioned.
5. Luke 4:33 Jesus drives a demon from a man in a synagogue. No symptoms are mentioned.
6. Luke 8:29 Jesus drives many demons from a man who manifests hostility, violence, and superntural strength, fully restoring him to normalcy.
7. Luke 9:42 Jesus drives a demon from a boy subject to seisures. The boy is healed.
8. Luke 11:14 Jesus drives a demon from a dumb man, who then begins to speak.
9. Luke 13:16 Jesus heals a woman who is so crippled she can’t stand up straight. He then describes her as one “Satan has kept bound for eighteen long years.”
Looking at these incidents, what stands out is that in seven of the nine, physical or mental afflictions are associated with the activity of demons. When Jesus drives out the demons, healing takes place.
This clearly suggests that there’s good reason for demon possession to be juxtaposed with sickness and healing in the general references to Christ’s healing ministry in the Gospels. Deliverance from demons was in many cases the key to healing from various kinds of truly serious afflictions.
Why then are so many Christians ignorant of the role of deliverance in healing? Certainly very few teach about the role evil spirits may have in our physical, mental or spiritual disabilities. Many Christian leaders and teachers hesitate to even consider the possiblity of approaching healing from a deliverance standpoint. But its clear from the Gospels that when the sick came to Jesus, he often recognized a demonic element and approached healing by driving out the demons who kept the individual bound.
There is much we don’t understand about the role of deliverance in healing. There is much we need to learn. So keep tuned to www.demondope.com, as we continue these studies.
Add your comments and questions
Posted by owner on
November 4, 2008
The current “scientific” view of man doesn’t quite cut it, as I suggested in my last post. The idea that any condition that afflicts people must have an origin in the physical realm is to conceive of humans as no more than living machines, and to strip us of all responsbility for our choices. This hardly fits the biblical view of humans as individuals who have an eternal destiny which will be fixed in accord with our choices in this life. But what is a biblical view of human beings?
The traditional tripartate view
Many theologians posit a human nature that is a composit of three elements: body, soul, and spirit. While these three elements are intimately linked, the “soul” is generally viewed as the essential “person,” and the body and spirit as attributes possessed by the soul.
The “soul,” which generally is identified as the immaterial “true person,” is further broken down into mind, emotion and will. Thus persons think, feel, and make choices. Following Scripture, most theologians would argue that each of these capacities has been corrupted in Adam’s fall, so that neither our minds or feelings can be trusted and the choices we make will be flawed.
The body is the physical, material aspect of a person. Most would say that we “have” a body, making a distinction between personal identity and the body a person inhabits. Thus the body can’t really be identified as “us.”
The third element, the “spirit,” is generally define as that aspect of humankind which is God-conscious. That is, humans have a “spiritual” aspect which cries out for relationship with some power beyond itself, and is often depicted by Christian theologians as a void which can only be filled by relationship with God.
The problem with this analysis of human nature is that it imposes Greek philosophical categories on biblical terms and concepts. While Hebrews 4:12 describes the living words of divine revelaion as a scalple capable of “dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow,” the verse hardly supports the view that soul and spirit are distinguishable. In fact, the verse suggests that it is almost impossible to distinguish between soul and spirit, for this feat is only possible with God.
An alternative view
While the terms “soul” (nephesh, psyche) and spirit (ruah, pneuma) are used frequently in Scripture, it’s counterproductive to attempt to describe each in isolation from the other. In fact, Scripture depicts humans as whole persons. Terms like “soul” and “spirit” represents viewpoints from which these whole persons are to be understood.
Thus “soul” does not refer to some immaterial part of a human being, but looks at a man or woman as a person living his or her life in this present world. Every experience a person has, every characteristic that marks him or her as an individual, is suggested in the word “soul.” The soul is the person himself, the unique individual being, who is both shaped by his life experiences and who expresses his individuality in his responses to those experiences. it’s no wonder that translators of the NIV Old Testament frequently translate nephesh by “life,” “being,” and “self” as well as “soul.”
We can see how important this is by looking at Ezekiel 18, where God warns that “the nephesh [soul] that sins, it shall die.” In context God is warning the people of Jerusalem and Judah that unless they repent they will be killed in the coming babylonian invasion. There is no suggestion here that the “soul” (as the immaterial “real person”) will suffer eternal punishment. Instead the warning should be translated, “the person who sins will be killed,” for here nephesh is used as a reflexive pronoun.
Also, in this alternative view, “spirit” depicts each human being as unique and immortal, gifted by God not only with a unique self but as a “living soul” (Genesis 2:7), shaped originally in the image and likeness of the Creator. While this likeness has been distorted by sin, the fallen image-likeness still persists, and human beings have a spiritual dimension that transcends their experience in this world and provokes a consciousness of the eternal.
The value of this alternative view is twofold. One, it teaches us to view others as whole persons. This means first, that we cannot isolate the causes of any condition and say, for example, that this is solely a physical problem, or a psychological problem, or even a spiritual problem. Every affliction has an impact on the whole person, not just on his body or his mind or his spirit. And this means second, that we cannot treat any affliction by dealing with it simply as a physical or mental or spiritual problem. We have to treat the whole person.
This is primary flaw in psychiatry’s current obsession with brain chemicals. It attempts to treat the physical in isolation from the psychological and spiritual. [Not that psychiatry has ever been particularly conscious of spiritual dimensions of even psychological problems.]
Where does deliverance fit in?
In a society where even psychological dimensions are ignored in the treatment of many afflictions we can hardly expect medical science to be enthusiastic about the notion that spiritual healing is an essential element in the treatment of physical or psychological afflictions. Even churches, those institutions supposedly focused on the spiritual, seldom see any role in healing aside from offering prayers for the recovery of sick paitioners. It’s no wonder, given the current blindness to the role of the spiritual in healing in general, that the notion of deliverance from the influence of evil spirits in those things that afflict us is dismissed out of hand.
Yet there is clear evidence in the Gospels that evil spirits, demons, definitely have been actively involved in the sicknesses and chronic illnesses that afflict God’s people.
In the next post we’ll look at some of this evidence, and raise a legitimate question. If
Scripture makes it clear that in the past demons have been involved in illnesses that afflicted God’s people, why should we suppose they no longer torment us in that way? And why should we suppose that deliverance from evil spirits has no place in Christian ministry today?
Feel free to add your comments and questions
Posted by owner on
November 4, 2008
Dorothy is deeply depressed and anxious. It began two years ago, when she had a brief affair with a co-worker. It was exciting at first. But Dorothy had violated deeply held values, and she began to feel guilty. Gradually over the months after she broke off the affair, Dorothy found herself sinking into depression, and the victim of what she recognized as irrational fears.
If Dorothy had gone to a pastor with her symptoms, he might have concluded that her problem was spiritual, and that repentance, confession, and forgiveness were keys recovering a sense of wellbing. If Dorothy had gone to a psychiatrist, he would have written her a prescription.
A question of origins
The notion that conditions that afflict people may have an origin that lies outside the physical realm isn’t popular in our society. We Westerners have inherited the enlightenment’s belief in rationality and science. Today psychiatrists increasingly rely on drugs to treat all sorts of disorders. The fact that many symptoms . . . of anxiety, depression, paranoia, etc. . . . can be reduced by the use of various psychotropic drugs is taken as evidence that every mental disorder has its origin in brain chemestry.
This in turn has led to the growing conviction in psychology that there is no such thing as the individual “mind;” that our personalities, attitudes, likes and dislikes, even our choices, are caused by operations within the physical brain. The so-called “mind/brain” debate seems to many psychatrists to have been resolved in favor of the belief that the brain is real, while the concept of an independent “mind” or “self” is a fiction. No wonder that psychiatry has changed radically in the last three decades. The theories of Freud and Jung and the others have been discarded; working with patients to seek the root and resolution of problems has been replaced by the writing of prescriptions.
I’m not suggesting that prescription drugs hasn’t proven helpful, or that chemical imballances in the brain don’t occur. I’m simply pointing out that as medical “science” focuses its attention on the physical aspects of many conditions that afflict us, the possibiility of a spiritual origin for any condition is ruled out a priori.
Take any person riddled with anxiety. Yes, antianxiety drugs help reduce the symptoms. In fact, the many antianxiety drugs on the market provide billions of dollars for pharmaceutical houses, suggesting how prevelant anxiety is. But the use of these drugs does nothing to identify the source anyone’s anxiety. And none of the drugs cure the anxiety.
Does it matter?
What happens if we travel further down the path psychiatry has taken, and accept the popular view that what happens in the brain is the necessary and sufficient explanation of any conditions that afflicts us? In essence, we reduce human beings to chemical machines.
Genes and chromosomes control human development. The switching of synapses responding to chemical cues controls behavior. The thoughts we think that we think aren’t our thoughts at all; they’re the product of our organism’s response to stimuli imbedded in our past experiences. Like a computer, we’re machines that have been programed. It follows that The choices we make aren’t really “our” choices. They too are programmed responses; responses over which we have no real control, and thus for which we can’t be held responsible. The criminal can’t be blamed for his crimes, nor the benefactor be praised for his good works.
And certainly, there can be no spiritual or psychological cause of any of our disorders. Above all, there is no possiblity that evil spirits may have seized on an originating experience to gain access to our minds and use that experience to render our lives miserable and unproductive.
Seduction central
The assumptions underlying psychiatry’s radical turn to prescription drugs have had a seductive impact on our society. Today pastors are much more likely to direct individuals who come to them for counseling to psychiatrists who will treat their fears and depression with drugs. Christian and secular counselors also are quick to assume that certain kinds of problems are rooted in chemical imballances.
There’s no doubt that some problems are due to chemical imbalances, and that treatment with drugs is indicated. But we as a socity are being seduced into assuming that the problems of nearly all troubled individuals are physically based.
The result is that the psychological or spiritual orgins of many problems often go untreated. And the possibility of demonic involvment in the lives of many who yearn for healing is ignored.
It’s not surprising that in Western society the notion deliverance may be an important dimension in healing is dismissed or ridiculed.
Examining Assumptions
When we see the assumptions that undergird contemporary psychiatry, and realize that views built on these assumptions have been uncritically and often unconsciously adopted in our society, its easy to understand why the spiritual aspect of healing is commonly ignored. What we need is another set of assumptions, this time one based on a biblical view of human nature.
That’s what I hope to take up in the next Demondope article, hopefully tomorrow.
Add your questions and comments